Comparative Evaluation of Shear Bond Strength of Glass Ionomer Cement, Resin-Modified Glass Ionomer Cement and Alkasite Restorative Material to Human Dentin: An In-Vitro Study
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.48165/ajm.2026.9.01.13Keywords:
Shear bond strength; glass ionomer cement; resin-modified glass ionomer cement; alkasite; dentin adhesion; restorative dentistryAbstract
Background: Durable adhesion between restorative materials and dentin is essential for the longevity and clinical success of restorations. Conventional glass ionomer cement (GIC), resin-modified glass ionomer cement (RMGIC), and alkasite restorative materials are widely used because of their fluoride release, chemical bonding potential, and simplified clinical application; however, their comparative bonding performance remains inconclusive. Aim: To compare the shear bond strength (SBS) of conventional GIC, RMGIC, and alkasite restorative material to human dentin. Materials and Methods: Thirty extracted human premolars were sectioned to expose flat mid-coronal dentin surfaces and randomly allocated into three groups (n = 10): Group I—conventional GIC, Group II—RMGIC, and Group III—alkasite restorative material. Restorations were placed according to manufacturers’ instructions using a standardized cylindrical mold. After storage in distilled water at 37 °C for 24 hours, specimens were subjected to shear bond strength testing using a universal testing machine at a cross-head speed of 1 mm/min. SBS values were calculated in megapascals (MPa) and statistically analyzed using one-way analysis of variance followed by Tukey’s post-hoc test (α = 0.05). Results: Alkasite restorative material demonstrated the highest mean shear bond strength (14.06 ± 1.87 MPa), followed by RMGIC (11.52 ± 1.74 MPa) and conventional GIC (8.94 ± 1.58 MPa). The differences among the three groups were statistically significant (p < 0.001). Conclusion: Within the limitations of this in-vitro study, alkasite restorative material exhibited superior bonding to dentin compared with both types of glass ionomer cements. Conventional GIC showed the lowest shear bond strength.Downloads
References
Fernández, E., Gil, A. C., Caviedes, R., Díaz, L., & Bersezio, C. (2025). Clinical longevity of direct dental restorations: An umbrella review of systematic reviews. Journal of Esthetic and Restorative Dentistry. Advance online publication.
Perdigão, J. (2020). Current perspectives on dental adhesion: (1) Dentin adhesion—not there yet. Japanese Dental Science Review, 56(1), 190–207.
Betancourt, D. E., Baldion, P. A., & Castellanos, J. E. (2019). Resin-dentin bonding interface: Mechanisms of degradation and strategies for stabilization of the hybrid layer. International Journal of Biomaterials, 2019, 5268342.
Lohbauer, U. (2009). Dental glass ionomer cements as permanent filling materials?—Properties, limitations, and future trends. Materials, 3(1), 76–96.
Nicholson, J. W. (1998). Chemistry of glass-ionomer cements: A review. Biomaterials, 19, 485–494.
Wilson, A. D., & McLean, J. W. (1988). Glass-ionomer cement. Quintessence Publishing.
Genaro, L. E., Anovazzi, G., Hebling, J., & Zuanon, A. C. C. (2020). Glass ionomer cement modified by resin with incorporation of nanohydroxyapatite: In vitro evaluation of physical-biological properties. Nanomaterials, 10(7), 1412.
Bhavana, K., Uloopi, K. S., Vinay, C., Chaitanya, P., Ramesh, M. V., & Ahalya, P. (2024). A randomized controlled trial evaluating the clinical performance of bioactive restorative material and resin-modified glass ionomer cement in carious primary molar restorations. International Journal of Clinical Pediatric Dentistry, 17(10), 1109–1113.
Mhole, M., Tandon, S., Gupta, S., Gosavi, H., Ali, A. R., & Kaul, M. (2025). Evaluation of clinical efficacy of Cention N and Tetric N-Ceram in class I carious lesions in primary mandibular molars. Journal of Oral Biology and Craniofacial Research, 15(6), 1231–1237.
Adsul, P. S., Dhawan, P., Tuli, A., Khanduri, N., & Singh, A. (2022). Evaluation and comparison of physical properties of Cention N with other restorative materials in artificial saliva: An in vitro study. International Journal of Clinical Pediatric Dentistry, 15(3), 350–355.
Menezes-Silva, R., Cabral, R. N., Pascotto, R. C., Borges, A. F. S., Martins, C. C., Navarro, M. F. L., Sidhu, S. K., & Leal, S. C. (2019). Mechanical and optical properties of conventional restorative glass-ionomer cements: A systematic review. Journal of Applied Oral Science, 27, e2018357.
Khoroushi, M., & Keshani, F. (2013). A review of glass-ionomers: From conventional glass-ionomer to bioactive glass-ionomer. Dental Research Journal, 10(4), 411–420.
Tay, W. M., & Lynch, E. (1989). Glass-ionomer (polyalkenoate) cements. Part 1. Development, setting reaction, structure and types. Journal of the Irish Dental Association, 35(2), 53–57.
Taher, N. M., & Ateyah, N. Z. (2007). Shear bond strength of resin modified glass ionomer cement bonded to different tooth-colored restorative materials. Journal of Contemporary Dental Practice, 8(2), 25–34.
Prabhakar, A. R., Raj, S., & Raju, O. S. (2003). Comparison of shear bond strength of composite, compomer and resin modified glass ionomer in primary and permanent teeth: An in vitro study. Journal of Indian Society of Pedodontics and Preventive Dentistry, 21(3), 86–94.
Sulimany, A. M., Aldowsari, M. K., Bin Saleh, S., Alotaibi, S. S., Alhelal, B. M., & Hamdan, H. M. (2024). An in vitro assessment of the shear bond strength of alkasite restorative material in primary molars compared with glass ionomer and resin-modified glass ionomer restorations. Materials, 17(24), 6230.
Dawood, A. E., Alkhalidi, E. F., & Saeed, M. A. (2024). Shear bond strength between conventional composite resin and alkasite-based restoration used in sandwich technique: An in vitro study. Journal of International Society of Preventive & Community Dentistry, 14(2), 161–166.
