Research Paper
Evaluation of the interfacial work of fracture of glass-ionomer cements bonded to dentin

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jmbbm.2013.09.020Get rights and content

Abstract

Objective

The aim of this study was to investigate the interfacial work of fracture of conventional (C-) and resin-modified (RM-) glass-ionomer cements (GICs) bonded to dentin.

Methods

One hundred and sixty five aries-free human molars were embedded in epoxy resin, sectioned and polished with 300- and 600- grit silicon carbide paper to remove enamel on the occlusal surface. Equilateral triangular-shaped plastic molds (4×4×4×5 mm4) were clamped to the prepared dentin surfaces by a stainless steel test apparatus. Teflon tape was placed under one internal vertex of the mold to create a 0.1-mm notch at the material-dentin interface. Interfacial work of fracture (γwofint) in tensile fracture mode-I (opening) was determined for six C-GIC, three RM-GIC, and two GIC luting cements at a cross-head speed of 0.1 mm/min and a crosshead distance (L) from the interface of 4.3 mm. The debonded surfaces were evaluated for the predominant failure mode. SEM analysis of examples showing interfacial and notch areas was performed.

Results

ANOVA and Tukey's post hoc test demonstrated the highest mean γwofint value (90.16±16.6 J/m2) of one RM-GIC was significantly different (p<0.05) from the other materials. ‘High viscosity’ GICs achieved lower results with the lowest recorded at 20.4±10.1 J/m2. There was a significant difference observed (p<0.05) between the mean γwofint of luting C-GIC and luting RM-GIC. Although differences were observed between different material mean γwofint, when comparing groups no significant differences (p=0.181) were observed. For all groups, mixed GIC-interface failure (41%) was the most commonly observed, followed by cohesive failure in GIC (25%) and adhesive failure (20%). SEM analysis revealed that specimens generally fractured from the notch initiation point into the GIC or along the dentin–GIC interface.

Conclusion

Within the limits of this study, significant differences (p<0.05) were observed in the γwofint between different glass-ionomer materials. The null hypothesis that there is no difference in the γwofint among different glass-ionomer materials bonded to human dentin was rejected.

Relevance

In the current study, the interfacial work of fracture (γwofint) of glass-ionomer adhesive interfaces has been reported using a simple method that can be used to study the fracture mechanics of an adhesive interface without the need for complicated specimen preparation.

Introduction

Variables such as test rig, biological substrate, dentin and enamel type and position in the tooth, storage of teeth, affect bond strength tests (Heintze, 2013). However the bond tests used are simple and easy to use, so they are still commonly reported in an effort to demonstrate the efficacy and ranking of adhesive dental materials. Comparing bond strength test results from different studies is not recommended as test conditions are invariably different among the various tests (Kelly et al., 2012, Scherrer et al., 2010, VanNoort, 1989). Several authors have questioned the validity of these tests and criticized the lack of standard protocols and relevance to clinical performance (Della Bona and Watts, 2013, Heintze, 2013, Stephen, 2012). Researchers have also suggested that a fracture mechanics approach is more appropriate than conventional shear or tensile bond strength tests (Salz and Bock, 2010).

Using a fracture mechanics approach, a crack is introduced into the bond interface and the system's strength to resist crack propagation across the adhesive interface has also been investigated (Hashimoto, 2010, Salz and Bock, 2010). Critical stress intensity factor (KC), describes the ability to resits crack propagation. Linear elastic fracture toughness (KIC) studies the stress region ahead of crack propagation in tensile (mode – I) failure (Soderholm, 2010). Various methods have been employed to investigate interfacial fracture toughness of adhesives to teeth and biomaterials to determine the work of fracture which has been abbreviated as Wf andWi, plane strain interfacial fracture toughness (KICint), the adhesive (elastic-plastic) fracture energy (JIC) and the critical plane strain energy release rate (GICint) (Armstrong et al., 1998, Armstrong et al., 2001, Barker, 1977, Cheng et al., 1999, De Munck et al., 2013, Della Bona et al., 2006, Howard and Söderholm, 2010, Jancar, 2011, Lin and Douglas, 1994, Rasmussen, 1984, Rasmussen and Patchin, 1984, Tam and Pilliar, 1993, Tam and Pilliar, 1994, Tam and Yim, 1997, Toparli and Aksoy, 1998, Walshaw et al., 2003). Studies have also been performed on bone cements, which show adhesive failure occurring due to stress cracking at some point in their lifecycle (Lucksanasombool et al., 2003, Tong, 2006, Tong et al., 2007, Wang and Pilliar, 1989, Wang and Agrawal, 1997, Wang and Agrawal, 2000, Wang et al., 1994). Interfacial fracture toughness has also been measured for glass-ionomer materials (Akinmade and Hill, 1992, Mitsuhashi et al., 2003, Setien et al., 2005, Tam et al., 1995). Furthermore, a series of reviews on bond tests have recommended that a fracture mechanics approach be revisited as the preferred test method for adhesive strength evaluation (De Munck et al., 2005, Kinloch, 1979, Salz and Bock, 2010, Scherrer et al., 2010, Soderholm, 2010).

A contributing factor as to why adhesive interfacial fracture toughness tests have not been commonly reported is because current tests are complicated and often require specialized apparatus to prepare the dentin and dental material into the desired configuration. Attempts have been made to develop less complex systems, including adaptations of a common shear bond strength test using triangular shaped adhesive areas, (Cheng et al., 1999, Tantbirojn et al., 2000) and a notchless triangular prism specimen developed by Ruse et al. (Ruse et al., 1996). There is currently no available standardized test method for determination of interfacial fracture toughness properties of adhesive dental materials.

Tattersall and Tappin introduced a simple method to determine the work of fracture of materials using a specimen with a square cross section and triangular fracture surface (Tattersall and Tappin, 1966). Further work by Rasmussen et al. demonstrated a test method to study the fracture properties of enamel and dentin, and determined the work of fracture (Wf or γwof), calculated by dividing the total energy (J) required to initiate fracture by twice the surface area (m2) of a triangular-shaped fractured surface (Rasmussen, 1984, Rasmussen and Patchin, 1984, Rasmussen et al., 1976). The test method was also adapted to investigate interfacial work of fracture (Wi or γwofint) for porcelain-gold and enamel-composite adhesion (Rasmussen, 1978). Subsequent studies have also investigated fracture mechanics of different materials and interfaces using a γwof approach (Sakai and Bradt, 1993).

The aim of this study was to compare the interfacial work of fracture (γwofint) and failure modes of several glass-ionomer cements bonded to dentin, using a new simplified test method. The null hypothesis is that there is no difference in the interfacial work of fracture (γwofint) among different glass-ionomer cement materials bonded to human dentin.

Section snippets

Teeth preparation

Human ethics approval (♯1033315.1) for the use of human teeth was obtained from the University of Melbourne. One-hundred and sixty-five caries-free human molars were selected from a tooth bank. No information on the age of teeth was available. Teeth were stored in a refrigerated 0.5% chloramine T solution and used within six months of collection date. This method of storage followed guidelines described in ISO TS 11405 Dental materials – testing of adhesion to tooth structure. The teeth were

Interfacial work of fracture (γwofint)

Mean γwofint were normally distributed for all materials, as assessed by Shapiro–Wilks test (p>0.05). The mean γwofint are shown in Table 2 and Fig. 3. A total of 23 samples debonded prior to testing. Significant differences were observed between materials and Tukey's post hoc test revealed four homogenous subsets identified in Table 2. The highest mean value was observed with one visible light cured RM-GIC (Fuji II LC capsules) which was significantly different (p<0.05) than other material

Discussion

It is important to optimize the “adhesive” strength, including durability, of dental materials to provide “safe and effective products”(Della Bona and Watts, 2012). In the current study, the γwofint of glass-ionomer–dentin interfaces is reported, which provide a method that can be used to study the fracture mechanics of an adhesive interface. This study investigated a simple mold and apparatus that can be used to determine the γwofint of dental materials without the need for complicated

Conclusions

Within the limits of this study, a visible-light-cured RM-GIC exhibited significantly higher (p<0.05) γwofint compared to other RM-GIC, C-GIC, luting-C-GIC and luting-RM-GIC materials. Significant differences (p<0.05) were observed between materials. The null hypothesis, that there is no difference in the γwofint among different glass-ionomer materials bonded to human dentin, was rejected.

References (46)

  • J. Jancar

    Bond strength of five dental adhesives using a fracture mechanics approach

    Journal of the Mechanical Behavoir of Biomedical Materials

    (2011)
  • J.R. Kelly et al.

    The slippery slope – critical perspectives on in vitro research methodologies

    Dental Materials

    (2012)
  • C.P. Lin et al.

    Failure mechanisms at the human dentin-resin interface: a fracture mechanics approach

    Journal of Biomechanics

    (1994)
  • P. Lucksanasombool et al.

    Interfacial fracture toughness between bovine cortical bone and cements

    Biomaterials

    (2003)
  • A. Mitsuhashi et al.

    Fracture toughness of resin-modified glass ionomer restorative materials: effect of powder/liquid ratio and powder particle size reduction on fracture toughness

    Dental Materials

    (2003)
  • S.S. Scherrer et al.

    Direct comparison of the bond strength results of the different test methods: a critical literature review

    Dental Materials

    (2010)
  • V.J. Setien et al.

    Interfacial fracture toughness between resin-modified glass ionomer and dentin using three different surface treatments

    Dental Materials

    (2005)
  • L.E. Tam et al.

    Effect of dentine depth on the fracture toughness of dentine-composite adhesive interfaces

    Journal of Dentistry

    (1997)
  • J. Tong et al.

    Determination of interfacial fracture toughness of bone-cement interface using sandwich Brazilian disks

    Engineering Fracture Mechanics

    (2007)
  • M. Toparli et al.

    Fracture toughness determination of composite resin and dentin/composite resin adhesive interfaces by laboratory testing and finite element models

    Dental Materials

    (1998)
  • R. VanNoort

    A critique of bond strength measurements

    Journal of Dentistry

    (1989)
  • P.R. Walshaw et al.

    Bond failure at dentin-composite interfaces with ‘single-bottle’ adhesives

    Journal of Dentistry

    (2003)
  • C.T. Wang et al.

    Bone cement bonding—interfacial fracture toughness determination

    Clinical Materials

    (1989)
  • Cited by (6)

    • Effects of alternatively used thermal treatments on the mechanical and fracture behavior of dental resin composites with varying filler content

      2021, Journal of the Mechanical Behavior of Biomedical Materials
      Citation Excerpt :

      On the other hand, the softer composition of the indirect resin composite may have enhanced the compliance of the system, in which plastic deformation is possible to occur for longer period before fracture (Sedrez-Porto et al., 2019). This was indeed observed in our study, with the indirect material showing the greatest work of fracture and greater deflection ability during mechanical loading (Fig. 3), thus indicating that more energy was necessary until fracture (Cheetham et al., 2014). It seems that the less rigid nature of the indirect resin composite allowed a more uniform distribution of stress, preventing fast crack propagation and consequently a more ductile fracture mechanism (Cheetham et al., 2014; Mayer, 2011).

    • New generation bulk-fill resin composites: Effects on mechanical strength and fracture reliability

      2019, Journal of the Mechanical Behavior of Biomedical Materials
      Citation Excerpt :

      This finding suggests that restorative materials are paramount to improve the biomechanical behavior of a cavitated tooth, probably due to a better transmission of stresses through not only the dental substrates, but also within the body of the restored system (Tribst et al., 2018). From the mechanical properties tested, the Wf is one that holds great relevance, since it is associated to the amount of energy required to initiate crack propagation within the restored system, so that the greater the work of fracture, the longer its resistance to fracture (Cheetham et al., 2014). Despite the absence of statistical differences among the restored groups, Bulk-Regular recorded the greatest Wf and load-to-fracture values, indicating its apparent better mechanical behavior.

    • Shrinkage vectors of a flowable composite in artificial cavity models with different boundary conditions: Ceramic and Teflon

      2018, Journal of the Mechanical Behavior of Biomedical Materials
      Citation Excerpt :

      In dentistry, Teflon is not being used in dental applications either by the dentist or by the dental lab technician. However, in research, Teflon is commonly used as an adjunctive material or cavity model for gap and volumetric analysis of resin composites (Cheetham et al., 2014; de Melo Monteiro et al., 2011; Miletic et al., 2011; Pereira et al., 2008; Takahashi et al., 2010). The unbonded situation in a non-adhesive Teflon cavity is just one of many possibilities of a non-adhesive situation.

    • Properties of glass ionomer cements after addition of organic dye solutions

      2018, Chinese Journal of Tissue Engineering Research
    • The future of glass-ionomers

      2016, Glass-Ionomers in Dentistry
    View full text