1Ex. Post Graduate Student, Paedodontics & Preventive Dentistry, Manipal College of Dental Sciences, Mangalore, A constituent Institution of Manipal Academy of Higher Education, Manipal
2Professor, Paedodontics & Preventive Dentistry, Manipal College of Dental Sciences, Mangalore, A constituent Institution of Manipal Academy of Higher Education, Manipal
3Associate Professor, Public Health Dentistry, Manipal College of Dental Sciences, Mangalore, A constituent Institution of Manipal Academy of Higher Education, Manipal
4Professor & Head, Paedodontics & Preventive Dentistry, Manipal College of Dental Sciences, Mangalore, A constituent Institution of Manipal Academy of Higher Education, Manipal
*Corresponding Author: Arathi Rao Professor, Paedodontics & Preventive Dentistry, Manipal College of Dental Sciences, Manipal Academy of Higher Education Light House Hill Road, Mangalore-575001, Email: arathi.rao@manipal.edu
Online published on 19 August, 2019.
In a vital pulp therapy such as direct pulp capping or pulpotomy, MTA is directly placed over the pulp followed by the restoration with resin modified glass ionomer cement or composite material. An important factor determining the clinical success of such restorations is the bond between MTA and restorative material. Therefore, the aim of the present study was to evaluate and compare the bond strength of MTA with Glass Ionomer and Composite resin interface.
The sample size was calculated as 11 in each group. Tensile and shear bond strength was measured between MTA-Glass Ionomer and MTA-Composite material. Percentage of bond failure for each group was obtained. Average and standard deviations were calculated and the data was analyzed by independent‘t’ test. The level of significance was set at 0.05.
Out of the total 44 samples, 29 samples showed cohesive failures. Maximum numbers of failures, i.e. 17 were in tensile bond strength group which included 8 in RMGIC group and 9 in Composite resin group. Of the 12 failures in shear bond strength, 5 were in RMGIC group and 7 in composite resin group. There was no statistically significant difference between the shear bond strength of RMGIC and Composite with MTA (p = 0.39) at confidence interval of 95%. No statistically significant difference was observed between the tensile bond strength of RMGIC and Composite samples with MTA (p = 0.41) at confidence interval of 95%.
There was no difference in the bond strengths attained between Resin modified Glass ionomers and Resin Composites with Mineral trioxide Aggregate
Mineral Trioxide Aggregate, Glass Ionomer, Composite Resin, Bond strength
