Skip to main content

Thank you for visiting nature.com. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

  • Review
  • Published:

Comparative evaluation of shear bond strength of calcium silicate-based liners to resin-modified glass ionomer cement in resin composite restorations - a systematic review and meta-analysis

Evidence-Based Dentistry (2022)Cite this article

Abstract

Purpose The aim of this systematic review was to evaluate the difference in shear bond strength between calcium silicate-based liners to resin-modified glass ionomer cement (RMGIC) in resin composite restorations.

Materials and methods The protocol was registered in PROSPERO following which primary research was carried out on Medline, Scopus and Cochrane library. To assess the risk of bias, a customised tool was used. Among the 194 records retrieved from the databases, only ten articles qualified for qualitative and quantitative synthesis after meeting all the requirements of the eligibility criteria. Covidence software was used to record the decisions. Studies published until 31 March 2021 were taken up for the review. The articles showed a low-to-moderate risk of bias. I2 test was used to check the percentage variation due to heterogeneity.

Results RMGIC showed a higher shear bond strength value compared to the three calcium silicate liners MTA, Biodentine and TheraCal LC. However, TheraCal LC and MTA showed better bond strength than Biodentine. Cohesive failure was seen predominantly in liners followed by adhesive failure. RMGIC shows mixed mode of failure in some studies.

Conclusions RMGIC is preferred over calcium silicate-based materials as the liner to be used under resin composite restorations. Among calcium silicate-based materials, TheraCal LC showed a better bond strength value. The mode of failure was predominantly cohesive in all the liner groups in majority.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution

Access options

Buy this article

  • Purchase on Springer Link
  • Instant access to full article PDF
Buy now

Prices may be subject to local taxes which are calculated during checkout

Fig. 1
Fig. 2

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Qualtrough A J E, Satterthwaite J D. Principles of Operative dentistry. UK: Wiley-Blackwell, 2005.

  2. Hilton T J, Ferracane J L, Broome J C. Summitt's Fundamentals of Operative Dentistry: A Contemporary Approach. 4th ed. Hanover Park: Quintessence Publishing Co, 2013.

  3. Heymann H, Swift E J, Ritter A V, Sturdevant C M. Sturdevant's Art and Science of Operative Dentistry. 6th ed. St Louis: Elsevier/Mosby, 2013.

  4. Brännström M. Communication between the oral cavity and the dental pulp associated with restorative treatment. Oper Dent 1984; 9: 57-68.

  5. Hilton T J. Cavity sealers, liners, and bases: current philosophies and indications for use. Oper Dent 1996; 21: 134-146.

  6. Leinfelder K F. Changing restorative traditions: the use of bases and liners. J Am Dent Assoc 1994; 125: 65-67.

  7. Ritter A V, Swift E J. Current restorative concepts of pulp protection. Endod Topics 2003; 5: 41-48.

  8. Strassler H E. New concepts with bases and liners. J Esthet Dent 1992; 4: 140-141.

  9. Tyas M J. Pulp protection under restorations-do you need a liner? Aust Endod J 1998; 24: 104-108.

  10. Chisini L A, Conde M C M, Correa M B et al. Vital Pulp Therapies in Clinical Practice: Findings from a Survey with Dentist in Southern Brazil. Braz Dent J 2015; 26: 566-571.

  11. Donly K J, Segura A, Kanellis M, Erickson R L. Clinical performance and caries inhibition of resin-modified glass ionomer cement and amalgam restorations. J Am Dent Assoc 1999; 130: 1459-1466.

  12. Knight G M, McIntyre J M, Mulyani. Bond strengths between composite resin and auto cure glass ionomer cement using the co-cure technique. Aust Dent J 2006; 51: 175-179.

  13. Simon J F, Darnell L A. Considerations for proper selection of dental cements. Compend Contin Educ Dent 2012; 33: 28-30, 32, 34-35; quiz 36; 38.

  14. Estafan D, Pines M S, Erakin C, Fuerst P F. Microleakage of Class V restorations using two different compomer systems: an in vitro study. J Clin Dent 1999; 10: 124-126.

  15. Zanata R L, Navarro M F, Ishikiriama A, da Silva e Souza Júnior M H, Delazari R C. Bond strength between resin composite and etched and non-etched glass ionomer. Braz Dent J 1997; 8: 73-78.

  16. Watson T F, Atmeh A R, Sajini S, Cook R J, Festy F. Present and future of glass-ionomers and calcium-silicate cements as bioactive materials in dentistry: biophotonics-based interfacial analyses in health and disease. Dent Mater 2014; 30: 50-61.

  17. Deepa V, Dhamaraju B, Bollu I, Balaji T. Shear bond strength evaluation of resin composite bonded to three different liners: TheraCal L C, Biodentine, and resin-modified glass ionomer cement using universal adhesive: An in vitro study. J Conserv Dent 2016; 19: 166.

  18. Asgary S, Parirokh M, Eghbal M J, Brink F. Chemical differences between white and grey mineral trioxide aggregate. J Endod 2005; 31: 101-103.

  19. Mozayeni M A, Milani A S, Marvasti L A, Asgary S. Cytotoxicity of calcium enriched mixture cement compared with mineral trioxide aggregate and intermediate restorative material. Aust Endod J 2012; 38: 70-75.

  20. Ribeiro D A, Matsumoto M A, Duarte M A H, Marques M E A, Salvadori D M F. Ex vivo biocompatibility tests of regular and white forms of mineral trioxide aggregate. Int Endod J 2006; 39: 26-30.

  21. Poggio C, Lombardini M, Colombo M, Beltrami R, Rindi S. Solubility and pH of direct pulp capping materials: a comparative study. J Appl Biomater Funct Mater 2015; DOI: 10.5301/jabfm.5000230.

  22. Hirschberg C S, Patel N S, Patel L M, Kadouri D E, Hartwell G R. Comparison of sealing ability of MTA and EndoSequence Bioceramic Root Repair Material: a bacterial leakage study. Quintessence Int 2013; 44: e157-e162.

  23. Camilleri J. Characterization of hydration products of mineral trioxide aggregate. Int Endod J 2008; 41: 408-417.

  24. Girish C S, Ponnappa K, Girish T, Ponappa M. Sealing ability of mineral trioxide aggregate, calcium phosphate and polymethylmethacrylate bone cements on root ends prepared using an Erbium: Yttriumaluminium garnet laser and ultrasonics evaluated by confocal laser scanning microscopy. J Conserv Dent 2013; 16: 304-308.

  25. Gandolfi M G, Siboni F, Prati C. Chemical-physical properties of TheraCal, a novel light-curable MTA-like material for pulp capping. Int Endod J 2012; 45: 571-579.

  26. Cantekin K, Avci S. Evaluation of shear bond strength of two resin-based composites and glass ionomer cement to pure tricalcium silicate-based cement (Biodentine). J Appl Oral Sci 2014; 22: 302-306.

  27. Altunsoy M, Tanrıver M, Ok E, Kucukyilmaz E. Shear Bond Strength of a Self-adhering Flowable Composite and a Flowable Base Composite to Mineral Trioxide Aggregate, Calcium-enriched Mixture Cement, and Biodentine. J Endod 2015; 41: 1691-1695.

  28. Nekoofar M H, Motevasselian F, Mirzaei M, Yassini E, Pouyanfar H, Dummer P M. The Micro-Shear Bond Strength of Various Resinous Restorative Materials to Aged Biodentine. Iran Endod J 2018; 13: 356-361.

  29. Sambathkumar D P, Mathian D V M, Philomine D et al. Comparative Evaluation Of Shear Bond Strength Of Biodentine And Resin Modified Glass Ionomer Cement Using Two Adhesive Systems In Premolars Restored With Composites: An In-Vitro Study. J Dent Sci 2019; 18: 8-13.

  30. Samman M, Barakat O, Fares H. Bonding ability of different liners to bulk-fill resin composite using silane-containing adhesive. Egypt Dent J 2017; 63: 2905-2913.

  31. Mehra S, Gupta A K, Singh B P, Kaur M, Kumar A. To Evaluate Shear Bond Strength of Resin Composite to Theracal Lc, Biodentine, and Resin-Modified Glass Ionomer Cement and Mode of Fracture: An In Vitro Study. Dent J Adv Stud 2020; 8: 49-54.

  32. Oskoee S S, Kimyai S, Bahari M, Motahari P, Eghbal M J, Asgary S. Comparison of Shear Bond Strength of Calcium-enriched Mixture Cement and Mineral Trioxide Aggregate to Composite Resin. J Contemp Dent Pract 2011; 12: 457-462.

  33. Savadi Oskoee S, Bahari M, Kimyai S, Motahhari P, Eghbal M J, Asgary S. Shear bond strength of calcium enriched mixture cement and mineral trioxide aggregate to composite resin with two different adhesive systems. J Dent (Tehran) 2014; 11: 665-671.

  34. Thakkar R, Kini S, Upadhya N P. Comparative evaluation of shear bond strength of resin modified glass ionomer cement and biodentine as dentin substitutes to bonded silver amalgam and composite resin. J Clin Diagn 2018; 12: 18-21.

  35. Vaghela L L, Patel M C. Evaluation of shear bond strength of composite resin with Vitrebond and TheraCal using two different adhesive system-An in vitro study. J Med Dent Sci 2020; 19: 29-34.

  36. Alhowaish L, Salama F, Al-Harbi M, Abumoatti M. Shear Bond Strength of a Resin Composite to Six Pulp Capping Materials Used in Primary Teeth. J Clin Paediatr Dent 2020; 44: 234-239.

  37. Hashem D F, Foxton R, Manoharan A, Watson T F, Banerjee A. The physical characteristics of resin composite-calcium silicate interface as part of a layered/laminate adhesive restoration. Dent Mater 2014; 30: 343-349.

  38. Cobb D S, MacGregor K M, Vargas M A, Denehy G E. The physical properties of packable and conventional posterior resin-based composites: a comparison. J Am Dent Assoc 2000; 131: 1610-1615.

  39. Araujo F de O, Vieira L C C, Monteiro Junior S. Influence of resin composite shade and location of the gingival margin on the microleakage of posterior restorations. Oper Dent 2006; 31: 556-561.

  40. Cara R R, Fleming G J P, Palin W M, Walmsley A D, Burke F J T. Cuspal deflection and microleakage in premolar teeth restored with resin-based composites with and without an intermediary flowable layer. J Dent 2007; 35: 482-489.

  41. Kaup M, Dammann C H, Schäfer E, Dammaschke T. Shear bond strength of Biodentine, ProRoot MTA, glass ionomer cement and composite resin on human dentine ex vivo. Head Face Med 2015; 11: 14.

  42. Wilson A D. Resin-modified glass-ionomer cements. Int J Prosthodont 1990; 3: 425-429.

  43. Kerby R E, Knobloch L. The relative shear bond strength of visible light-curing and chemically curing glass-ionomer cement to composite resin. Quintessence Int 1992; 23: 641-644.

  44. Navimipour E J, Oskoee S S, Oskoee P A, Bahari M, Rikhtegaran S, Ghojazadeh M. Effect of acid and laser etching on shear bond strength of conventional and resin-modified glass-ionomer cements to composite resin. Lasers Med Sci 2012; 27: 305-311.

  45. Li J, Liu Y, Liu Y, Söremark R, Sundström F. Flexure strength of resin-modified glass ionomer cements and their bond strength to dental composites. Acta Odontol Scand 1996; 54: 55-58.

  46. Ajami A A, Jafari Navimipour E, Savadi Oskoee S, Abed Kahnamoui M, Lotfi M, Daneshpooy M. Comparison of shear bond strength of resin-modified glass ionomer and composite resin to three pulp capping agents. J Dent Res Dent Clin Dent Prospects 2013; 7: 164-168.

  47. Bachoo I K, Seymour D, Brunton P. A biocompatible and bioactive replacement for dentine: is this a reality? The properties and uses of a novel calcium-based cement. Br Dent J 2013; 214: E5.

  48. Carretero V, Giner-Tarrida L, Peñate L, Arregui M. Shear Bond Strength of Nanohybrid Composite to Biodentine with Three Different Adhesives. Coatings 2019; 9: 783.

  49. Shin H, Kim M, Nam O, Lee H, Choi S, Kim K. Shear Bond Strength Comparison of Different Adhesive Systems to Calcium Silicate-based Materials. J Korean Acad Paediatr Dent 2018; 45: 445-454.

  50. Hegde M N, Bhandary S. An evaluation and comparison of shear bond strength of composite resin to dentin, using newer dentin bonding agents. J Conserv Dent 2008; 11: 71-75.

  51. Takamizawa T, Barkmeier W W, Tsujimoto A et al. Influence of Pre-etching Times on Fatigue Strength of Self-etch Adhesives to Enamel. J Adhes Dent 2016; 18: 501-511.

  52. Boruziniat A, Gharaei S. Bond strength between composite resin and resin modified glass ionomer using different adhesive systems and curing techniques. J Conserv Dent 2014; 17: 150-154.

  53. Arora V, Kundabala M, Parolia A, Thomas M S, Pai V. Comparison of the shear bond strength of RMGIC to a resin composite using different adhesive systems: An in vitro study. J Conserv Dent 2010; 13: 80-83.

  54. Mount G J. The wettability of bonding resins used in the composite resin/glass ionomer 'sandwich technique'. Aust Dent J 1989; 34: 32-35.

  55. Adnan M M, Abdulrazzaq M M, Al-Ani Z T A. Influence of adhesive system on shear bond strength between composite and Biodentine or mineral trioxide aggregate with different surface treatments. Drug Invent Today 2020; 13: 4.

  56. OdabaÅŸ M E, Bani M, Tirali R E. Shear bond strengths of different adhesive systems to biodentine. ScientificWorldJournal 2013; DOI: 10.1155/2013/626103.

  57. Kasraie S, Shokripour M, Safari M. Evaluation of micro-shear bond strength of resin modified glass-ionomer to composite resins using various bonding systems. J Conserv Dent 2013; 16: 550-554.

  58. Suprabha B, Simi B. A comparative study of shear bond strength of two adhesive liners to nanocomposite. J Interdisc Dent 2012; 2: 170.

  59. Hara A T, Pimenta L A, Rodrigues A L. Influence of cross-head speed on resin-dentin shear bond strength. Dent Mater 2001; 17: 165-169.

  60. Tulumbaci F, Almaz M E, Arikan V, Mutluay M S. Shear bond strength of different restorative materials to mineral trioxide aggregate and Biodentine. J Conserv Dent 2017; 20: 292-296.

  61. Adebayo O A, Burrow M F, Tyas M J. Bond strength test: role of operator skill. Aust Dent J 2008; 53: 145-150.

Download references

Funding

None.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Conservative Dentistry and Endodontics, Amrita School of Dentistry, Amrita Vishwa Vidyapeetham, Kochi 682041, India

    Akhila Manoj, R. Kavitha, V. P. Prabath Singh, Kaushik Haridas & Krishnan Venugopal

  2. Department of Public Health Dentistry, Amrita School of Dentistry, Amrita Vishwa Vidyapeetham, Kochi 682041, India

    Vineetha Karuveettil

Authors
  1. Akhila Manoj
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. R. Kavitha
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Vineetha Karuveettil
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. V. P. Prabath Singh
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Kaushik Haridas
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Krishnan Venugopal
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

Dr Akhila Manoj, Dr R. Kavitha, Dr Vineetha Karuveettil: conceptualisation and article screening. Dr Akhila Manoj, Dr Vineetha Karuveettil: methodology and statistical analysis. Dr Akhila Manoj, Dr R. Kavitha, Dr V. P. Prabath Singh, Dr Kaushik Haridas, Dr Krishnan Venugopal: writing - original draft, writing - review and editing.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Akhila Manoj.

Ethics declarations

The authors declare none.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Manoj, A., Kavitha, R., Karuveettil, V. et al. Comparative evaluation of shear bond strength of calcium silicate-based liners to resin-modified glass ionomer cement in resin composite restorations - a systematic review and meta-analysis. Evid Based Dent (2022). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41432-022-0825-y

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41432-022-0825-y

Search

Advanced search

Quick links