Skip Nav Destination
Close Modal
Update search
Filter
- Title
- Author
- Author Affiliations
- Full Text
- Abstract
- Keyword
- DOI
- ISBN
- EISBN
- ISSN
- EISSN
- Issue
- Volume
- References
Filter
- Title
- Author
- Author Affiliations
- Full Text
- Abstract
- Keyword
- DOI
- ISBN
- EISBN
- ISSN
- EISSN
- Issue
- Volume
- References
Filter
- Title
- Author
- Author Affiliations
- Full Text
- Abstract
- Keyword
- DOI
- ISBN
- EISBN
- ISSN
- EISSN
- Issue
- Volume
- References
Filter
- Title
- Author
- Author Affiliations
- Full Text
- Abstract
- Keyword
- DOI
- ISBN
- EISBN
- ISSN
- EISSN
- Issue
- Volume
- References
Filter
- Title
- Author
- Author Affiliations
- Full Text
- Abstract
- Keyword
- DOI
- ISBN
- EISBN
- ISSN
- EISSN
- Issue
- Volume
- References
Filter
- Title
- Author
- Author Affiliations
- Full Text
- Abstract
- Keyword
- DOI
- ISBN
- EISBN
- ISSN
- EISSN
- Issue
- Volume
- References
NARROW
Format
Journal
Article Type
Date
Availability
1-1 of 1
Zübeyde Uçar Gündoğar
Close
Follow your search
Access your saved searches in your account
Would you like to receive an alert when new items match your search?
Sort by
Journal Articles
Journal of Clinical Pediatric Dentistry (2021) 45 (1): 29–34.
Published: 10 March 2021
Abstract
Objective: This study evaluated the microtensile bond strength (μTBS) of ion-releasing restorative materials to sound and caries-affected dentin (CAD). Study design: 60 teeth were randomly divided into 2 groups (sound dentin, CAD) and 5 subgroups of 6 samples each: conventional glass ionomer cement (GIC), resin-modified GIC (RMGIC), glass hybrid reinforced GIC (EQ), giomer (BII), and bioactive restorative material (ACT). μTBS analyses were performed and data were analyzed statistically. Results: The ACT group bonded to sound dentin and the BII group bonded to CAD showed the highest μTBS (p<0.05). The GIC, RMGIC, and ACT groups, showed significantly lower μTBS when bonded to CAD compared with sound dentin (p<0.05). However, in the BII group, there were no statistically significant differences between the samples bonded to sound and CAD (p>0.05). All groups except EQ that bonded to sound dentin showed predominantly adhesive failure. Conclusion: The use of the giomer can be recommended due to its more stable bond durability.