Effect of Bioactive Glass on Microshear Bond Strength of Composite Resin to Dentin Using a Universal Adhesive with Different Application Modes and Storage Times

Seyed Mostafa  Mosavinasab; Kamyar  Fathpoor; Babak  Sarrafpoor; Mohamad Hossein  Fakour

doi:10.18502/fid.v22i24.18868

Seyed Mostafa Mosavinasab Department of Operative dentistry, Dental Material Research Center, Dental Research Institute, School of Dentistry, Isfahan University of Medical Sciences, Isfahan, Iran.
Kamyar Fathpoor Department of Operative dentistry, Dental Material Research Center, Dental Research Institute, School of Dentistry,Isfahan University of Medical Sciences, Isfahan, Iran.
Babak Sarrafpoor School of Medical Sciences, Faculty of Medicine and Health, The University of Sydney, Sydney, Australia
Mohamad Hossein Fakour Department of Operative Dentistry, School of Dentistry, Isfahan University of Medical Sciences, Isfahan, Iran.

DOI: https://doi.org/10.18502/fid.v22i24.18868

Keywords: Bioactive glass 45S5; Dental Cements; Shear Strength; Dentin-Bonding Agents

Abstract

Objectives: This study evaluated the effect of bioactive glass (BAG) in different forms on microshear bond strength (µSBS) of composite resin to dentin using a universal adhesive in self-etch (SE) and etch-and-rinse (E&R) modes after different storage times.

Materials and Methods: In this in vitro study, 120 extracted human third molars were sectioned 3mm occlusal to their cementoenamel junction to expose dentin. The teeth were then randomly assigned to three groups (n=40): (I) 20% BAG suspension for dentin pretreatment, (II) 1% BAG-modified adhesive (G2-Bond Universal), and (III) BAG-free control group. Each group was subdivided based on the adhesive application mode (SE or E&R) and storage time (immediate at 24 hours, or delayed at 3 months), with 10 teeth per each subgroup. The µSBS was measured by a universal testing machine. Data were analyzed by three-way and two-way ANOVA, followed by the Tukey's post-hoc test (α=0.05).

Results: Three-way ANOVA showed significant interaction effect of BAG incorporation and storage time on µSBS (P=0.017); while other interactions were not significant (P>0.05). The effects of BAG incorporation (P=0.951) and application mode (P=0.769) were not significant on immediate µSBS (P>0.05). After 3 months, the 1% BAG-modified adhesive showed a significantly higher µSBS than the 20% BAG suspension (P=0.001) and the control group (P<0.001), with no significant effect of application mode (P=0.417).

Conclusion: BAG incorporation did not affect the immediate µSBS of the adhesive but improved its long-term durability, such that the 1% BAG-modified adhesive showed the highest delayed µSBS, regardless of the application mode.