Editorial Type:
Article Category: Research Article
 | 
Online Publication Date: 24 Jul 2024

Effect of Blood Decontamination Procedures on the Microshear Bond Strength of Resin-modified Glass Ionomer Cement to Resin Composite

,
,
,
,
, and
Page Range: 412 – 420
DOI: 10.2341/23-104-L
Save
Download PDF

SUMMARY

Objective:

To investigate the effect of decontamination procedures on the microshear bond strength (μSBS) of blood-contaminated resin-modified glass ionomer cement (RMGIC) bonded to resin composite (RC).

Methods:

Eighty RMGIC disc specimens were allocated into 5 groups (n=16). All groups except Group 2 were contaminated with blood. Group 1 had no decontamination procedure, Group 3 was decontaminated by rinsing, Group 4 was decontaminated by 34% phosphoric acid etching, and Group 5 was decontaminated by 5% sodium hypochlorite application. RMGIC specimens were subsequently bonded with RC using a universal adhesive in self-etch mode. μSBS tests were conducted using a universal testing machine at a crosshead speed of 1 mm/min. Failure mode analysis was conducted on RMGIC fracture surfaces under a scanning electron microscope.

Results:

μSBS results indicated that Group 4 had the highest mean μSBS value of 6.22 ± 2.14 MPa, while Group 1 had the lowest mean μSBS value of 3.53 ±1.67 MPa. Significant differences were observed in the μSBS of Group 2 with no contamination (p=0.023) and Group 4 with decontamination by phosphoric acid-etching (p=0.003) when compared to Group 1 with blood contamination. No statistically significant differences (p>0.05) were observed between all other groups’ μSBS. For all groups, the predominant mode of failure was adhesive failure between the RMGIC-RC interface, with a few mixed failures in RMGIC for Groups 2-5.

Conclusions:

Blood contamination before adhesive application significantly reduced the μSBS between RMGIC and RC. Phosphoric acid etching was the most effective blood decontamination procedure to improve the μSBS.

Copyright: 2024
Figure 1.
Figure 1.

Flowchart summary of the experimental groups used.


Figure 2.
Figure 2.

Steps involved with bonding and bond strength testing. (a) Universal dental adhesive applied in self-etch mode and light cured for 20 seconds; (b) hollow brass tube stabilized on RMGIC specimen with resin composite packed into it; (c) resin composite light cured for 40 seconds; (d) specimens stored in distilled water for 24 hours; (e) μSBS tests conducted using a universal testing machine at a crosshead speed of 1 mm/min.


Figure 3.
Figure 3.

Mean microshear bond strength (μSBS) ± standard deviation measured in MPa of all experimental groups. *Indicates a statistically significant difference at a significance level of a=0.05.


Figure 4.
Figure 4.

Mean surface roughness (Ra) measured in μm for all experimental groups. No significant difference between the groups (p>0.05).


Figure 5.
Figure 5.

Representative SEM micrographs demonstrating different failure modes observed for the de-bonded specimens after μSBS testing. (a) Adhesive failure and (b) mixed failure — with cohesive RMGIC and adhesive failures. (Scale bars are shown.)


Figure 6.
Figure 6.

Representative SEM micrographs of specimens from each group. (a) Blood contamination control G1; (b) no blood contamination control G2; (c) experimental G3 decontaminated by water rinsing; (d) experimental G4 decontaminated by acid etching; (e) experimental G5 decontaminated by NaOCl rinsing. (Scale bars are shown.)


Contributor Notes

*Corresponding author: PO Box 56, Dunedin 9054, New Zealand; e-mail: mani.ekambaram@otago.ac.nz
Accepted: 09 Apr 2024
  • Download PDF