• Restorative Dentistry and Endodontics
• /
• v.30 no.3
• /
• pp.158-169
• /
• 2005

This study was done to evaluate the shear bond strength between light-cured glass ionomer cement (GIC) base and resin cement for luting indirect resin inlay and to observe bonding aspects which is produced at the interface between them by SEM. Two types of light cured GIC (Fuji II LC Improved, GC Co. Tokyo, Japan and Vitrebond$^{TM}$, 3M, Paul Minnesota U.S.A) were used in this study. For shear bond test, GIC specimens were made and immersed in 37$^{\circ}C$ distilled water for 1 hour, 24 hours, 1 week and 2 weeks. Eighty resin inlays were prepared with Artglass$^{(R)}$ (Heraeus Kultzer Germany) and luted with Variolink$^{(R)}$ II (Ivoclar Vivadent, Liechtenstein). Shear bond strength of each specimen was measured and fractured surface were examined. Statistical analysis was done with one-way ANOVA. Twenty four extracted human third molars were selected and Class II cavities were prepared and GIC based at axiopulpal lineangle. The specimens were immersed in 37$^{\circ}C$ distilled water for 1 hour, 24 hours, 1 week and 2 weeks. And then the resin inlays were luted to prepared teeth. The specimens were sectioned vertically with low speed saw. The bonding aspect of the specimens were observed by SEM (JSM-5400$^{(R)}$, Jeol, Tokyo, Japan) .There was no significant difference between the shear bond strength according to storage periods of light cured GIC base. And cohesive failure was mostly appeared in GIC On scanning electron micrograph, about 30 - 120 $\mu$m of the gaps were observed on the interface between GIC base and dentin. No gaps were observed on the interface between GTC and resin inlay.

• Restorative Dentistry and Endodontics
• /
• v.25 no.3
• /
• pp.399-406
• /
• 2000

The effect of inlay surface treatment on bonding was investigated when resin inlay was bonded to resin-modified glass-ionomer base with resin cement. For the preparation of glass-ionomer base, resin-modified glass-ionomer cement (Fuji II LC, GC Co., Japan) was filled in class I cavities of 7mm in diameter and 2mm in depth made in plastic molds. Eighty eight resin inlay specimens were made with Charisma$^{(R)}$ (Kulzer, Germany) and then randomly assigned to the four different surface treatment conditions: Group I, $50{\mu}m$ aluminium oxide sandblasting and silane treatment ; Group II, silane treatment alone ; Group III, sandblasting alone, and Group IV (control), no surface treatment. After a dentin bonding agent with primer (One-Step$^{TM}$, Bisco Inc., IL., U.S.A.) was applied to bonding surface of resin inlay and base, resin inlay were cemented to glass-ionomer base with a resin cement (Choice$^{TM}$, Bisco Inc., IL., U.S.A.). Shear bond strengths of each specimens were measured using Instron universal testing machine (4202 Instron, lnstron Co., U.S.A.) and fractured surfaces were examined under the stereoscope. Statistical analysis was done with one-way ANOVA and Dunkan's multiple range test. The results were as follows: 1. Sandblasting and silane treatment provided the greatest bond strength(10.56${\pm}$1.95 MPa), and showed a significantly greater bond strength than sandblasting alone or no treatment (p<0.05). 2. Silane treatment provided a significantly greater bond strength(9.77${\pm}$2.04 MPa) than sandblasting alone or no treatment (p<0.05). However, there was no significant difference in bond strength between sandblasting treatment and silane one (p>0.05). 3. Sandblasting alone provided no significant difference in bond strength from no treatment (p>0.05). 4. Stereoscopic examination of fractured surface showed that sandblasting and silane treatment or silane treatment alone had more cohesive failure mode than adhesive failure mode. 5. In relationship between shear bond strength and failure mode, cohesive failure occurred more frequently as bond strength increased.