A comparative evaluation of microleakage and dentin shear bond strength of three restorative materials

References

• Somani R, Jaidka S, Singh DJ, et al. Comparative evaluation of shear bond strength of various glass ionomer cements to dentin of primary teeth: an in vitro study. Int J Clin Pediatr Dent. 2016;9(3):192–196.
   Google Scholar
• Alani AH, Toh CG. Detection of microleakage around dental restorations: a review. Oper Dent. 1997;22(4):173–185.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bahsi E, Sagmak S, Dayi B, et al. The evaluation of microleakage and fluoride release of different types of glass ionomer cements. Niger J Clin Pract. 2019;22(7):961–970.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Jaidka S, Somani R, Singh DJ, et al. Comparative evaluation of compressive strength, diametral tensile strength and shear bond strength of GIC type IX, chlorhexidine-incorporated GIC and triclosan-incorporated GIC: an in vitro study. J Int Soc Prev Community Dent. 2016;6(Suppl 1):S64–S69.
   Google Scholar
• Croll TP, Nicholson JW. Glass ionomer cements in pediatric dentistry: review of the literature. Pediatr Dent. 2002;24(5):423–429.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Abdulsamee N, Elkhadem AH. Zirconomer and zirconomer improved (white amalgams): restorative materials for the future. Review. EC Dent Sci. 2017;15:134–150.
   Google Scholar
• Walia R, Jasuja P, Verma KG, et al. A comparative evaluation of microleakage and compressive strength of ketac molar, giomer, zirconomer, and ceram-x: an in vitro study. J Indian Soc Pedod Prev Dent. 2016;34(3):280–284.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Chowdhury D, Guha C, Desai P. Comparative evaluation of fracture resistance of dental amalgam, Z350 composite resin and Cention-N restoration in class II cavity. IOSR J Dent Med Sci. 2018;4:52–56.
   Google Scholar
• Todd JC. Cention-N–scientific documentation. Schaan: IvoclarVivadent; 2016.
   Google Scholar
• Mazumdar P, Das A, Mandal D. Comparative evaluation of bond strength of composite resin & Cention-N to enamel and dentin with and without etching under universal testing machine. Univ J Dent Sci. 2018;4(3):1–6.
   Google Scholar
• Singla T, Pandit IK, Srivastava N, et al. An evaluation of microleakage of various glass ionomer based restorative materials in deciduous and permanent teeth: an in vitro study. Saudi Dent J. 2012;24(1):35–42.
   Google Scholar
• Morresi AL, D'Amario M, Capogreco M, et al. Thermal cycling for restorative materials: does a standardized protocol exist in laboratory testing? A literature review. J Mech Behav Biomed Mater. 2014;29:295–308.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Santini A, Ivanovic V, Ibbetson R, et al. Influence of cavity configuration on microleakage around class V restorations bonded with seven self-etching adhesives. J Esthet Restor Dent. 2004;16(2):128–135.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Aksoy S, Ünal M. Shear bond strength of universal adhesive systems to a bioactive dentin substitute (biodentine®) at different time intervals. SDS. 2017;1:116–122.
   Google Scholar
• Yahya NA, Shekh AM. Shear bond strength and failure mode of different dental adhesive systems. Ann Dent Univ Malaya. 2019;26:1–7.
   Google Scholar
• Hickel RE, Manhart J, García-Godoy FR. Clinical results and new developments of direct posterior restorations. Am J Dent. 2000;13(Spec No):41D–54D.
   Google Scholar
• Mitra SB, Lee CY, Bui HT, et al. Long-term adhesion and mechanism of bonding of a paste-liquid resin-modified glass-ionomer. Dent Mater. 2009;25(4):459–466.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kidd EA. Microleakage: a review. J Dent. 1976;4(5):199–206.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Platt JA, Oshida Y, Moore BK, et al. Three different methods to evaluate microleakage of packable composites in class II restorations. Oper Dent. 2003;28(4):453–460.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Raju VG, Venumbaka NR, Mungara J, et al. Comparative evaluation of shear bond strength and microleakage of tricalcium silicate-based restorative material and radioopaque posterior glass ionomer restorative cement in primary and permanent teeth: an in vitro study. J Indian Soc Pedod Prev Dent. 2014;32(4):304–310.
   Google Scholar
• Meshram P, Meshram V, Palve D, et al. Comparative evaluation of microleakage around class V cavities restored with alkasite restorative material with and without bonding agent and flowable composite resin: an in vitro study. Indian J Dent Res. 2019;30(3):403–407.
   Google Scholar
• Sharafeddin F, Feizi N. Evaluation of the effect of adding microhydroxyapatite and nano-hydroxyapatite on the microleakage of conventional and resin-modified glass-ionomer Cl V restorations. J Clin Exp Dent. 2017;9(2):e242–e248.
   Google Scholar
• Mazaheri R, Pishevar L, Shichani AV, et al. Effect of different cavity conditioners on microleakage of glass ionomer cement with a high viscosity in primary teeth. Dent Res J. 2015;12(4):337–341.
   Google Scholar
• Patel MU, Punia SK, Bhat S, et al. An in vitro evaluation of microleakage of posterior teeth restored with amalgam, composite and zirconomer – a stereomicroscopic study. J Clin Diagn Res. 2015;9(7):ZC65–67.
   Google Scholar
• Naz T, Singh D, Somani R, et al. Comparative evaluation of microleakage and compressive strength of glass ionomer cement type ix, zirconomer improved and Cention-N – an in vitro study. IJAR. 2019;7(9):921–931.
   Google Scholar
• Mousavinasab SM, Khoroushi M, Keshani F, et al. Flexural strength and morphological characteristics of resin-modified glass-ionomer containing bioactive glass. J Contemp Dent Pract. 2011;12(1):41–46.
   Google Scholar
• Feiz A, Amrollahi N, Ziayi F. Comparative evaluation of microtensile bond strength of four glass-containing materials with primary teeth dentin. Iran J Pediatr. 2019;29(4):e88774.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sapkale K, Sane R, Ahmed SA. Comparative evaluation of dentin bond strength of zirconomer, conventional glass ionomer cement, and resin-modified glass ionomer cement–an in vitro study. Int J Sci Res. 2020;9(1):954–959.
   Google Scholar
• Costa FV, de Paiva Campos LM, Ayala MD, et al. Comparison of different adhesive techniques using a universal adhesive system. Appl Adhes Sci. 2017;5(1):18.
   Google Scholar
• Kimyai S, Mohammadi N, Oskoee PA, et al. Effects of surface treatments of conventional glass-ionomer on shear bond strength to giomer. Dent Res J. 2012;9(6):700–705.
   Google Scholar
• Kaup M, Dammann CH, Schäfer E, et al. Shear bond strength of biodentine, ProRoot MTA, glass ionomer cement and composite resin on human dentine ex vivo. Head Face Med. 2015;11(1):14.
   Google Scholar
• Woolford M. Composite resin attached to glass polyalkenoate (ionomer) cement—the laminate technique. J Dent. 1993;21(1):31–38.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tanumiharja M, Burrow MF, Tyas MJ. Micro tensile bond strengths of glass ionomer (polyalkenoate) cements to dentine using four conditioners. J Dent. 2000;28(5):361–366.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Meral E, Baseren NM. Shear bond strength and microleakage of novel glass-ionomer cements: an in-vitro study. Niger J Clin Pract. 2019;22(4):566–572.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Fritz UB, Finger WJ, Uno S. Resin-modified glass ionomer cements: bonding to enamel and dentin. Dent Mater. 1996;12(3):161–166.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar