Comparative Evaluation of the Bond Strength Between Bioflx, Stainless Steel Crowns, and Stainless Steel Bands Using Type 1 Glass Ionomer Cement and Resin-modified Glass Ionomer Cement as Luting Agents: An In Vitro Study.
{"title":"Comparative Evaluation of the Bond Strength Between Bioflx, Stainless Steel Crowns, and Stainless Steel Bands Using Type 1 Glass Ionomer Cement and Resin-modified Glass Ionomer Cement as Luting Agents: An <i>In Vitro</i> Study.","authors":"Divya Singh, Arathi Rao, Ramya Shenoy, Gurvinder Kaur, Baranya Shrikrishna Suprabha","doi":"10.5005/jp-journals-10005-3026","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Aim and background: </strong>The retention of the band and loop space maintainer over the stainless steel crowns (SSCs) dictates the success of the space maintainer. Using two widely used luting agents, this study assesses the binding strength between SS bands and the most popular SSCs as well as the recently released Bioflx crowns.</p><p><strong>Materials and methods: </strong>This <i>in vitro</i> study consisted of 48 samples divided into four groups. Type I glass ionomer cement (GIC) and resin-modified glass ionomer cement (RMGIC) were used to cement stainless steel (SS) bands over SSCs and Bioflx crowns. The shear bond strength was tested using a universal testing apparatus. To determine the degree of significance, one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA), <i>post-hoc</i> Tukey's test, and a <i>p</i>-value maintained at ≤0.05 were utilized.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The shear bond strength between the SSC and RMGIC (0.908 ± 0.20 MPa) was statistically significant and higher than between the SSC and GIC (0.362 ± 0.21 MPa). Though not statistically significant, the binding strength between Bioflx crowns and GIC was stronger than between Bioflx crowns and RMGIC.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>The SS bands bonded well to the SSCs with RMGIC, and there was no significant difference between the SSCs and Bioflx crowns with GIC as the luting agent. Cohesive failures were common with GIC, and adhesive failures were common with RMGIC in both crowns.</p><p><strong>Clinical significance: </strong>The present study's findings can help clinicians make informed decisions when choosing crowns and luting agents for teeth with SSCs.</p><p><strong>How to cite this article: </strong>Singh D, Rao A, Shenoy R, <i>et al</i>. Comparative Evaluation of the Bond Strength Between Bioflx, Stainless Steel Crowns, and Stainless Steel Bands Using Type 1 Glass Ionomer Cement and Resin-modified Glass Ionomer Cement as Luting Agents: An <i>In Vitro</i> Study. Int J Clin Pediatr Dent 2025;18(1):70-74.</p>","PeriodicalId":36045,"journal":{"name":"International Journal of Clinical Pediatric Dentistry","volume":"18 1","pages":"70-74"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2025-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11915413/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"International Journal of Clinical Pediatric Dentistry","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.5005/jp-journals-10005-3026","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2025/2/14 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"Dentistry","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Aim and background: The retention of the band and loop space maintainer over the stainless steel crowns (SSCs) dictates the success of the space maintainer. Using two widely used luting agents, this study assesses the binding strength between SS bands and the most popular SSCs as well as the recently released Bioflx crowns.
Materials and methods: This in vitro study consisted of 48 samples divided into four groups. Type I glass ionomer cement (GIC) and resin-modified glass ionomer cement (RMGIC) were used to cement stainless steel (SS) bands over SSCs and Bioflx crowns. The shear bond strength was tested using a universal testing apparatus. To determine the degree of significance, one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA), post-hoc Tukey's test, and a p-value maintained at ≤0.05 were utilized.
Results: The shear bond strength between the SSC and RMGIC (0.908 ± 0.20 MPa) was statistically significant and higher than between the SSC and GIC (0.362 ± 0.21 MPa). Though not statistically significant, the binding strength between Bioflx crowns and GIC was stronger than between Bioflx crowns and RMGIC.
Conclusion: The SS bands bonded well to the SSCs with RMGIC, and there was no significant difference between the SSCs and Bioflx crowns with GIC as the luting agent. Cohesive failures were common with GIC, and adhesive failures were common with RMGIC in both crowns.
Clinical significance: The present study's findings can help clinicians make informed decisions when choosing crowns and luting agents for teeth with SSCs.
How to cite this article: Singh D, Rao A, Shenoy R, et al. Comparative Evaluation of the Bond Strength Between Bioflx, Stainless Steel Crowns, and Stainless Steel Bands Using Type 1 Glass Ionomer Cement and Resin-modified Glass Ionomer Cement as Luting Agents: An In Vitro Study. Int J Clin Pediatr Dent 2025;18(1):70-74.
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：
京公网安备 11010802042870号
