The objective of this in vitro study was to investigate the micro shear bond strength (µSBS) of mineral trioxide aggregate to four different restorative materials. Sixty mineral trioxide aggregate (MTA) samples were randomly assigned into four experimental groups based on the restorative materials used: nanohybrid resin composite as a control, giomer, alkasite and ormocer. µSBS samples were prepared for each group (n = 15). These samples were then submitted to a µSBS test (crosshead speed, 0.5 mm/min). The resulting data were statistically analyzed by one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA), Levene, and Bonferroni tests (α = 0.05). The bond strength of the alkasite group was statistically significantly higher than all the tested groups (p<0.05), while there were no significant differences between the nanohybrid resin composite, giomer, or ormocer groups (p > 0.05). Within the limitations of this study, alkasite restorative material could be a promising material when placed over MTA.
MurrayPEGarcia-GodoyFHargreavesKM. Regenerative endodontics: a review of current status and a call for action. J Endod2007; 33: 377–390.
2.
HurshKAKirkpatrickTCCardonJW, et al. Shear bond comparison between 4 bioceramic materials and dual-cure composite resin. J Endod2019; 45: 1378–1383.
3.
KarabucakBLiDLimJ, et al. Vital pulp therapy with mineral trioxide aggregate. Dent Traumatol2005; 21: 240–243.
4.
CantekinK. Bond strength of different restorative materials to light-curable mineral trioxide aggregate. J Clin Pediatr Dent2015; 39: 143–148.
5.
SerinBADoganMCYoldasHO. Comparison of the shear bond strength of silorane-based composite resin and methacrylate based composite resin to MTA. J Dent Res Dent Clin Dent Prospects2018; 12(1): 1–5.
6.
SritharanA. Discuss that the coronal seal is more important than the apical seal for endodontic success. Aust Endod J2002; 28: 112–115.
7.
Krawczyk-StussMNowakJBołtacz-RzepkowskaE. Bond strength of biodentine to a resin-based composite at various acid etching times and with different adhesive strategies. Dent Med Probl2019; 56: 39–44.
8.
SchubertAZieglerCBernhardA, et al. Cytotoxic effects to mouse and human gingival fibroblasts of a nanohybrid ormocer versus dimethacrylate-based composites. Clin Oral Investig2019; 23: 133–139.
9.
MahmoudSHEl-EmbabyAEAbdAllahAM. Clinical performance of ormocer, nanofilled, and nanoceramic resin composites in Class I and Class II restorations: A three-year evaluation. Oper Dent2014; 39: 32–42.
10.
WolterHStorchWOttH. New Inorganic/Organic Copolymers (Ormocer®s) for dental applications. Mater Res Soc Symp Proc1994; 346: 143–149.
11.
BacchiAFeitosaVPda Silva FonsecaAS, et al. Shrinkage, stress, and modulus of dimethacrylate, ormocer, and silorane composites. J Conserv Dent2015; 18: 384–388.
12.
RusnacMEGasparikCIrimieAI, et al. Giomers in dentistry – at the boundary between dental composites and glass-ionomers. Med Pharm Rep2019; 92: 123–128.
13.
SamantaSDasUKMitraA. Comparison of microleakage in class V cavity restored with flowable resin composite, glass ionomer cement and cention N. IMP J Interdiscip Res2017; 3: 180–183.
14.
KhudeMB. Comparative evaluation of stress distribution in class V cavity restored with alkasite glass ionomer cement, nano filled resin modified glass ionomer cement & nano-hybrid composite using finite element analysis. IJRRD2019; 2: 1–8.
15.
Bore GowdaVSreenivasa MurthyBVHegdeS, et al. Evaluation of Gingival microleakage in Class II composite restorations with different lining techniques: an in vitro study. Scientifica2015; 2015: 1–6.
16.
AltunsoyMTanrıverMOkE, et al. Shear bond strength of a self-adhering flowable composite and a flowable base composite to mineral trioxide aggregate, calcium-enriched mixture cement, and biodentine. J Endod2015; 41: 1691–1695.
17.
AlzraikatHTahaNAQasrawiD, et al. Shear bond strength of a novel light cured calcium silicate based-cement to resin composite using different adhesive systems. Dent Mater J2016; 35: 881–887.
18.
PalmaPJMarquesJAFalachoRI, et al. Does delayed restoration improve shear bond strength of different restorative protocols to calcium silicate-based cements?Materials2018; 11: 2216–2026.
19.
DoozanehMKoohpeimaFFirouzmandiM, et al. Shear bond strength of self-adhering flowable composite and resin-modified glass ionomer to two pulp capping materials. Iran Endod J2017; 12: 103–107.
20.
RadhakrishnanSRaoAShenoyR, et al. Comparative evaluation of tensile bond strength and shear bond strength of mineral trioxide aggregate with composite resin and resin modified glass ionomer. Indian J Public Health Res Dev2019; 10: 156–162.
21.
MayyaAGeorgeAMMayyaA, et al. Impact of maturation time on the shear bond strength of an alkasite restorative material to pure tricalcium silicate based cement: an in-vitro experimental study. J Int Oral Health2022; 14: 494.
CondeMCMChisiniLASarkis-OnofreR, et al. A scoping review of root canal revascularization: relevant aspects for clinical success and tissue formation. Int Endod J2017; 50: 860–874.
24.
VermaPNosratAKimJR, et al. Effect of residual bacteria on the outcome of pulp regeneration in vivo. J Dent Res2017; 96: 100–106.
25.
BaglarSDalliMColakH, et al. Effects of two different restorative materials on microleakage of class v cavities. Cumhuriyet Dent J2010; 13: 9–14.
26.
HinouraKSuzukiHOnoseH. Factors influencing bond strengths between unetched glass ionomers and resins. Oper Dent1991; 16: 90–95.
27.
PeumansMDe MunckJVan LanduytKL, et al. Eight-year clinical evaluation of a 2-step self-etch adhesive with and without selective enamel etching. Dent Mater2010; 26: 1176–1184.
28.
KutukZBOzturkCCakirFY, et al. Mechanical performance of a newly developed glass hybrid restorative in the restoration of large MO class 2 cavities. Niger J Clin Pract2019; 22: 833–841.
29.
NakanishiLKaizerMRBrandeburskiS, et al. Non-silicate nanoparticles for improved nanohybrid resin composites. Dent Mater J2020; 36: 1314–1321.
30.
AltinciPMutluayMTezvergil-MutluayA. Repair bond strength of nanohybrid composite resins with a universal adhesive. Acta Biomater Odontol Scand2018; 4: 10–19.
31.
BaşerenM. Surface roughness of nanofill and nanohybrid composite resin and ormocer-based tooth-colored restorative materials after several finishing and polishing procedures. J Biomater Appl2004; 19: 121–134.
32.
AjlouniRBisharaSESolimanMM, et al. The use of ormocer as an alternative material for bonding orthodontic brackets. Angle Orthod2005; 75: 106–108.
33.
QuaderSAAlamMSBasharAKM, et al. Compressive strength, fluoride release and recharge of giomer. Update Dent Coll J2013; 2: 28–37.
34.
DasAMazumdarPDasU. Comparative evaluation of microleakage of three different direct restorative materials (silver amalgam, glass ionomer cement, cention N), in class II restorations using stereomicroscope: an in vitro study. Indian J Dent Res2019; 30: 277–281.
35.
ChowdhuryDGuhaCDesaiP. Comparative evaluation of fracture resistance of dental amalgam, Z350 composite resin and cention-N restoration in class II cavity. J Dent Med Sci2018; 17: 52–56.
36.
Al-SarheedMA. Evaluation of shear bond strength and SEM observation of all-in-one self-etching primer used for bonding of fissure sealants. J Contemp Dent Pract2006; 7: 9–16.
37.
MishraASinghGSinghSK, et al. Comparative evaluation of mechanical properties of cention N with conventionally used restorative materials—an in vitro study. Int J Prosthodont Restor Dent2018; 8: 120–124.
38.
SultanaNNawalRRChaudhryS, et al. Effect of acid etching on the micro-shear bond strength of resin composite-calcium silicate interface evaluated over different time intervals of bond aging. J Conserv Dent2018; 21: 194–197.
39.
HarnirattisaiCRoengrungreangPRangsisiripaiboonU, et al. Shear and micro-shear bond strengths of four self-etching adhesives measured immediately and 24 hours after application. Dent Mater J2012; 31: 779–787.
40.
NeelakantanPGrotraDSubbaraoCV, et al. The shear bond strength of resin-based composite to white mineral trioxide aggregate. J Am Dent Assoc2012; 143: e40–e45.
41.
AtabekDSillelioğluHOlmezA. Bond strength of adhesive systems to mineral trioxide aggregate with different time intervals. J Endod2012; 38: 1288–1292.
