Minimally Invasive Dentistry: Bond Strength of Different Sealant and Filling Materials to Enamel

Purpose: The purpose of this study was to evaluate the shear bond strength of different sealant and filling materials, used in minimally invasive dentistry, to human enamel. Materials and Methods: Thirty-five sound extracted third molars were selected. The crowns were longitudinally sectioned, embedded in polystyrene resin, and grounded until a flat enamel surface was reached. The samples were assigned into seven groups (n = 10), according to the materials: G1-Fluoroshield; G2-Clinpro; G3-Dyract AP; G4-F2000; G5-Vitremer; G6-Fuji IX; G7-Vidrion F. All materials were applied according to the manufacturer's instructions. The samples were stored in distilled water at 37°C for 24 h and submitted to a shear bonding strength test in a universal testing machine with a crosshead speed of 0.5 mm/min. The failure sites were observed in Scanning Electron Microscopy (SEM). The data were submitted to ANOVA and Tukey's tests (p 0.05). Results: The mean values (MPa) of shear bond strength were for Fluroshield (25.92 ± 8.83), Vitremer (20.41 ± 13.34), Dyract AP (17.08 ± 6.38), Clinpro (12.82 ± 8.38), F2000 (8.71 ± 3.74), Fuji IX (7.64 ± 2.57), and Vidrion F (4.54 ± 2.11). Fluroshield resin sealant and Vitremer resin modified glass- ionomer showed statistically higher shear bond strength values than the conventional glass ionomer (GIC) cements. Clinpro and F2000 showed bond strength values with statistical difference only from Fluroshield. The failure mode varied among the groups. The majority of samples presented mixed failure. Conclusion: FluroShield and Vitremer showed better performance of shear bond strength to enamel than conventional GIC. Keywords: shear bond strength, sealants, filling materials, resin modified glass-ionomer