Comparative evaluation of shear bond strength to dentin with three different aesthetic chemically bonded restorative materials – an In-vitro study




Zirconomer, Amalgomer CR, glass ionomer cement, shear bond strength


The use of glass ionomer cements (GIC) as a restorative material was limited to areas of low masticatory forces due to their low mechanical properties which were also affected by the powder/liquid mixing ratio of this material. Bond strength is important for the clinical success of adhesive material. The shear bond strength (SBS) is the maximum force that an adhesive joint can tolerate before fracture which is tested by SBS tests. The high bond strength helps the adhesive to resist stresses caused by resin contraction
and forces for a longer time and thus prevents the problems of bond failure such as recurrent caries, tooth sensitivity and restoration failure. GIC as a restorative material has the capacity to release fluoride and shows good bonding ability. The use of GIC in anterior applications appears to be satisfactory, but they have limitations for use in permanent posterior teeth, particularly with regard to large restorations. Zirconia-reinforced GI (Zirconomer, Shofu Inc, Japan) is a new class of restorative material containing reinforced
glass ionomer with special zirconia fillers that promises the strength and durability of amalgam with the protective benefits of glass ionomer while eliminating the hazards of mercury. Amalgomer CR (Advanced Health Care, Tonbridge, Kent, UK), a novel ceramic-reinforced GIC, was introduced, which combines the benefits of GIC with the high strength of ceramics. In the present study, shear bond strength to the dentin with Zirconomer, Amalgomer CR and Fuji type IX GIC (GC Tokyo) are compared.


Download data is not yet available.

Author Biography

R Bharathi Suma, Department of Conservative Dentistry and Endodontics, CKS Teja Institute Of Dental Sciences and Research, Tirupathi, Andhra Pradesh, India


Yu OY, Lam WY-H, Wong AW-Y, Duangthip D, Chu C-H. Nonrestorative Management of Dental Caries. Dent. J.2021, 9, 121. dental caries - ref -1 DOI:

Bassir MM, Labibzadeh A, Mollaverdi F. The effect of amount of lost tooth structure and restorative technique on fracture resistance of endodontically treated premolars. J Conserv Dent. 2013 Sep;16(5):413-7. doi: 10.4103/0972-0707.117494 DOI:

Sujith R, Yadav TG, Pitalia D, Babaji P, Apoorva K, Sharma A. Comparative Evaluation Of Mechanical And Microleakage Properties Of Cention-N, Composite, and Glass Ionomer Cement Restorative Materials. J Contemp Dent Pract. 2020;21:691-5. 10.5005/jp-journals-10024-2837 DOI:

Kim M, Jo D-W, Khalifah SA, Yu B, Hayashi M, Kim RH. Shear Bond Strength of Composite Diluted with Composite-Handling Agents on Dentin and Enamel. Polymers 2022, 14, 2665. ref -4 DOI:

Tsujimoto A, Barkmeier WW, Fischer NG, Nojiri K, Nagura Y, Takamizawa T, Latta MA, Miazaki M. Wear Of Resin Composites: Current Insights Into Underlying Mechanisms, Evaluation Methods And Influential Factors. Jpn Dent Sci Rev. 2018;54:76-87. 10.1016/j.jdsr.2017.11.002 DOI:

Mazumdar P, Das A, Mandal D. Comparative Evaluation Of Bond Strength Of Composite Resin & Cention N to Enamel And Dentin With And Without Etching Under Universal Testing Machine. University J Dent Scie. 2018;4:1-6. COMPARATIVE%20EVALUATION%20OF%20BOND.pdf

Sikri VK. Color: Implications in dentistry. J Conserv Dent. 2010 Oct;13(4):249-55. doi: 10.4103/0972-0707.73381 DOI:

Almuhaiza M. Glass-ionomer Cements in Restorative Dentistry: A Critical Appraisal. J Contemp Dent Pract. 2016 Apr 1;17(4):331-6. doi: 10.5005/jp-journals-10024-1850 DOI:

Bowen RL, Marjenhoff WA. Dental composites/glass ionomers: the materials. Adv Dent Res. 1992 Sep;6:44-9. 10.1177/08959374920060011601 DOI:

Hervás-García A, Martínez-Lozano MA, Cabanes-Vila J, Barjau-Escribano A, Fos Galve P. Composite resins. A review of the materials and clinical indications. Med Oral Patol Oral Cir Bucal. 2006 Mar 1;11(2):E215-20.

Ramasetty PA, Bhat KY, Prasanna MK. (2014). Comparative evaluation of remineralization, fluoride release and physical properties of conventional GIC following incorporation of 1% and 2% zinc acetate: An in vitro study. International Journal of Oral Health Sciences. 2014:4(1). 10.4103/2231-6027.151613 DOI:

Eligeti T, Dola B, Kamishetty S, Gaddala N, Swetha A, Bandari J. Comparative Evaluation of Shear Bond Strength of Cention N with Other Aesthetic Restorative Materials to Dentin: An in Vitro Study. Annals of the Romanian Society for Cell Biology. 2021;25(6):12707-14.

Kumari A, Singh N. A comparative evaluation of microleakage and dentin shear bond strength of three restorative materials. Biomater Investig Dent. 2022 Feb 10;9(1):1-9. doi: 10.1080/26415275.2022.2033623 DOI:

Chalissery VP, Marwah N, Almuhaiza M, AlZailai AM, Chalisserry EP, Bhandi SH, Anil S. Study of the Mechanical Properties of the Novel Zirconia-reinforced Glass lonomer Cement. J Contemp Dent Pract. 2016;17(5):394-8. 10.5005/jpjournals-10024-1861 DOI:

Neveen M Ayad, Salwa A Elnogoly, Osama M Badie. An In-Vitro Study Of The Physico-Mechanical Properties Of A New Esthetic Restorative Versus Dental Amalgam. Rev. Clín. Pesq. Odontol. Curitiba. 2008; 4(3):137-44. 234076666_An_InVitro_Study_of_the_PhysicoMechanical_Properties_of_ _New_Esthetic_Restorative_Versus_Dental_Amalgam

Prasada K, Vidhyadhara HT. Comparative Evaluation Of Sorption And Solubility Of Amalgomer Cr And Cention N Restorative Material – An In Vitro Study. International Journal Of Dentistry Research. 2020;5:122-5. 10.5005/jp-journals-10005-1407 DOI:

Kishor Sapkale K, Rucha Sane R, Bashir Ahmed SA. Comparative Evaluation of Dentin Bond Strength of Zirconomer, Conventional Glass Ionomer Cement, and Resin - Modified Glass Ionomer Cement - An in Vitro Study. International Journal of Science and Research. 2020;9(1):954-9.

Nanavati K, Katge F, Krishna Chimata V, Pradhan D, Kamble A, Patil D. Comparative Evaluation of Shear Bond Strength of Bioactive Restorative Material, Zirconia Reinforced Glass Ionomer Cement and Conventional Glass Ionomer Cement to the Dentinal Surface of Primary Molars: an in vitro Study. J Dent Shiraz Univ Med Sci. December 2021; 22(4): 260-6

Naz F, et al. Comparative evaluation of mechanical and physical properties of a new bulk-fill alkasite with conventional restorative materials. Saudi Dental Journal (2020), DOI:

Riad MI, Badr SB, Ibrahim MA. Bond Performance of ceramic-modified Glass ionomer restorative. E.D.J. 2011;57:1-9.

Iftikhar N, Devashish, Srivastava B, Gupta N, Ghambir N, Rashi-Singh. A Comparative Evaluation of Mechanical Properties of Four Different Restorative Materials: An In Vitro Study. Int J Clin Pediatr Dent. 2019;12(1):47-49. doi: 10.5005/jp-journals-10005-1592 DOI:

Patel MU, Punia SK, Bhat S, Singh G, Bhargava R, Goyal P, Oza S, Raiyani CM. An in vitro Evaluation of Microleakage of Posterior Teeth Restored with Amalgam, Composite and Zirconomer - A Stereomicroscopic Study. J Clin Diagn Res. 2015; 9: 65-7.10.7860/JCDR/2015/13024.6225 DOI:

Somani R, Jaidka S, Singh DJ, Sibal GK. Comparative Evaluation of Shear Bond Strength of Various Glass Ionomer Cements to Dentin of Primary Teeth: An in vitro Study. Int J Clin Pediatr Dent. 2016 Jul-Sep;9(3):192-6. 10.5005/jpjournals-10005-1362 DOI:

Balagopal S, Nekkanti S, Kaur K. An In Vitro Evaluation of the Mechanical Properties and Fluoride-releasing Ability of a New Self-cure Filling Material. J Contemp Dent Pract. 2021 Feb 1;22(2):134-139 DOI:

Sharma C, Kaur H, Aggarwal M, Jakhu S. Comparative Evaluation of Shear Bond Strength of Glass Ionomer Cement, Composite and Compomer in Primary Teeth: An In Vitro Study. 2023. ISSN:2753-9172 DOI:

Bhattacharya P, Naidu J, Tambakad PB. Comparative Evaluation Of Shear Bond Strength And Flexural Strength Of New Zirconia Reinforced Glass Ionomer Cement With Commonly Used Glass Ionomer Cements Used In Atraumatic Restorative

Treatment: An In Vitro Study. J Oper Dent Endod. 2018;3:83-91. 10.5005/jp journals-10047-0062

Gu YW, Yap AUJ, Cheang P, Koh YL, Khor KA. Development of zirconia-glass ionomer cement composites. Journal of Non-Crystalline Solids.2005;351(6-7):508-14. 10.1016/j.jnoncrysol.2005.01.045 DOI:

Kawai Y, Uo M, Wang Y, Kono S, Ohnuki S, Watari F. Phase transformation of zirconia ceramics by hydrothermal degradation. Dent Mater J. 2011;30(3):286-92. doi: 10.4012/dmj.2010-175 DOI:

Bhattacharya A, Vaidya S, Tomer AK, Raina AA. GIC at its best – A review on ceramic reinforced GIC. International Journal of Applied Dental Sciences. 2017; 3(4): 405-408.

Murthy SS, Murthy GS. Comparative Evaluation of Shear Bond Strength of Three Commercially Available Glass Ionomer Cements in Primary Teeth. J Int Oral Health. 2015;7(8):103-7. of-Shear-Bond-Strength-of-in-Murthy-Murthy/79e5ae056bc95a4b1240159a537c2085a13460ec

Swift EJ Jr. Effects of glass ionomers on recurrent caries. Oper Dent. 1989 Winter;14(1):40-3.

Berg JH. Glass ionomer cements. Pediatr Dent. 2002 Sep-Oct;24(5):430-8. https://

Abdallah R, Abdelghany AM, Aref, N. “Does Modification of Amalgomer with Propolis Alter Its Physicomechanical Properties? An In Vitro Study”, International Journal of Biomaterials, 2020, Article ID 3180879, 10 pages, 2020. DOI:

Gautam E, Somani R, Jaidka S, Hussain S. A comparative evaluation of compressive strength and antimicrobial efficacy of Fuji IX and Amalgomer CR: An in vitro study. J Oral Biol Craniofac Res. 2020;10(2):118-21. 10.1016/j.jobcr.2020.03.001 DOI:




How to Cite

Sanjana, N., Krishna, V. N., Chandrasekhar, M., SunilKumar, C., SunilKuma, S., Babu, K. C., & Suma, R. B. (2024). Comparative evaluation of shear bond strength to dentin with three different aesthetic chemically bonded restorative materials – an In-vitro study. South African Dental Journal, 79(01), 17–20.