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.

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

Clinical performance of posterior restorations using a universal adhesive over moist and dry dentin: A 36-month double-blind split-mouth randomized clinical trial

Clinical evaluation of Giomer and self-etch adhesive compared with nanofilled resin composite and etch-and-rinse adhesive – Results at 8 years

Clinical evaluation of bulk-fill and universal nanocomposites in class II cavities: Five-year results of a randomized clinical split-mouth trial

Bond Strength, Microleakage, Microgaps, and Marginal Adaptation of Self-adhesive Resin Composites to Tooth Substrates with and without Preconditioning with Universal Adhesives

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

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

Influence of different application protocols of universal adhesive system on the clinical behavior of Class I and II restorations of composite resin – a randomized and double-blind controlled clinical trial

Shear bond strength of universal adhesives to human enamel and dentin

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

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

One-year results of a novel self-adhesive bulk-fill restorative and a conventional bulk-fill composite in class II cavities—a randomized clinical split-mouth study

Impact of Immediate Dentin Sealing Using Universal Adhesive under Simulated Pulp Pressure on Microtensile Bond Strength of Indirect Resin Composite Restorations and Dentin Permeability

Three Years Clinical Evaluation of Self-Eching Primer and Composite Resin on Posterior ClassⅠ Restorations

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

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

Comparative evaluation of sealing ability of two self-adhesive flowable composites following various restorative techniques in Class V lesions: An in vitro study

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

Marginal adaptation of two-step self-etch versus universal adhesives for Class V restorations: Effect of Er:YAG laser vs. bur prepared cavities