Abstract:The success of dental restorations depends mainly on the ability to bond to other filling materials and tooth substances, in order to resist the multitude of forces acting on the bond within the oral cavity. Although the shortcomings of composite resins have been significantly reduced over the past three decades, microleakage due to shrinkage under masticatory loads is unavoidable. In order to overcome such problems, two materials laminated with matched properties can be used to achieve optimum results. The sandwich technique is an approach in which dentine is replaced by glass ionomer cement (GIC), and enamel is replaced by composite resin. In the past, numerous materials have been proposed with adequate properties to be used in this manner, but the results are conflicting in terms of bonding to the various forms of GIC, and the appearance of microcracks or gap formation during functional loading. This study aimed to evaluate the shear bond strength (SBS) and mode of failure between the following core materials: composite resins (CR) (Methacrylate Z350TM, Ceram XTM, and SpectrumTM) with a base material of glass ionomer cement (GIC, Ketac MolarTM). Eight samples were made with the help of polytetrafluoroethylene sheets (TEFLON, Wilmington, DE, USA). Each sheet consisted of holes which were 4 mm in diameter and 2 mm in thickness. The combination of materials was sandwiched. The samples were stored in distilled water and then placed in an incubator for 24 h in order to ensure complete polymerization. The samples were thermocycled for 500 cycles between 5–55 °C/ 30 s. Following thermocycling, SBS testing was performed using a universal testing machine. Additionally, scanning electron microscopy (SEM) was performed on representative samples for the bond failure analysis between GIC and the composite resins. The Ceram-XTM nanocomposite showed significantly higher bond strength than Methacrylate Z350TM or SpectrumTM (p = 0.002). The Methacrylate Z350TM and the SpectrumTM composite specimens demonstrated a similar SBS (p = 0.281). The SBS of the Ceram XTM to GIC was the highest compared to Methacrylate Z350TM and SpectrumTM. Therefore Ceram XTM may produce a better bond with GIC, and may protect teeth against recurrent caries and failure of the restoration. Methacrylate Z350TM is comparable to SpectrumTM CR and can be used as an alternative. A combination of adhesive and mixed failure was observed in Methacrylate Z350TM CR and GIC, while adhesive failure was predominantly found in both Ceram XTM and SpectrumTM with GIC restorations.

10 year comparison of glass ionomer and composite resin restoration materials in class 1 and 2 cavities

Evaluation of Glass-Ionomer versus Bulk-Fill Resin Composite: A Two-Year Randomized Clinical Study

Clinical comparison of high‐viscosity glass‐hybrid systems with a sculptable bulk‐fill composite resin in different cavity types

A randomized, prospective clinical study evaluating effectiveness of a bulk-fill composite resin, a conventional composite resin and a reinforced glass ionomer in Class II cavities: one-year results

Clinical performance of a glass-hybrid system in comparison with a resin composite in two-surface class II restorations: a 5-year randomised multi-centre study

Comparison of Atraumatic Restorative Treatment and Conventional Restorative Procedures in A Hospital Clinic: Evaluation after 30 Months

Clinical performance of an alkasite-based bioactive restorative in class II cavities: a randomized clinical trial

Clinical performance of two ion‐releasing bulk‐fill composites in class I and class II restorations: A two‐year evaluation

Comparison of Class II Bulk-Fill, Self-Adhesive Composites, Alkasite, and High-Viscosity Glass Ionomer Restorations in Terms of Marginal and Internal Adaptation

Clinical performance of different bulk‐fill composite resin systems in class II cavities: A 2‐year randomized clinical trial

TWO YEARS CLINICAL EVALUATION OF A BULK FILL COMPOSITE RESIN COMPARED WITH A NANOHYBRIDE INCREMENTAL FILL COMPOSITE RESIN IN CLASS ΙΙ CAVITIES

Sixty-month comperative evaluation of a glass hybrid restorative and a composite resin in non-carious cervical lesions of bruxist individuals

Clinical assessment of thermo-viscous versus conventional bulk-fill resin composites in proximal compound posterior restorations

A randomized clinical study evaluating the 30-month clinical performance of class II indirect restorations in endodontically treated teeth using ceramic, hybrid, and composite computer-aided design/computer-aided production blocks

Clinical performance of different composite materials in class II cavities bonded with universal adhesives

Clinical Performance and Wear Resistance of Highly Translucent Nano Zirconia Reinforced Glass Ionomer Filling Versus Conventional Resin Composite Restorations in Patients with Proximal Carious Teeth: Randomized Clinical Trial

Comparative clinical evaluation between self‐adhesive and conventional bulk‐fill composites in class II cavities: A 1‐year randomized controlled clinical study

Three-year clinical evaluation of different restorative resins in class I restorations

A prospective, randomized, double-blind clinical trial of one nano-hybrid and one high-viscosity bulk-fill composite restorative systems in class II cavities: 12 months results

Evaluation of Shear Bond Strength between Resin Composites and Conventional Glass Ionomer Cement in Class II Restorative Technique—An In Vitro Study

Comparative evaluation of microleakage between bulk esthetic materials versus resin-modified glass ionomer to restore Class II cavities in primary molars