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.References
Fernández E, Gil AC, Caviedes R, Díaz L, Bersezio C. Clinical longevity of direct dental restorations: an umbrella review of systematic reviews. J Esthet Restor Dent. 2025 Oct 29.
Perdigão J. Current perspectives on dental adhesion: (1) dentin adhesion – not there yet. Jpn Dent Sci Rev. 2020 Nov;56(1):190-207.
Betancourt DE, Baldion PA, Castellanos JE. Resin-dentin bonding interface: mechanisms of degradation and strategies for stabilization of the hybrid layer. Int J Biomater. 2019 Feb 3;2019:5268342.
Lohbauer U. Dental glass ionomer cements as permanent filling materials?—properties, limitations and future trends. Materials (Basel). 2009 Dec 28;3(1):76-96.
Nicholson JW. Chemistry of glass-ionomer cements: a review. Biomaterials. 1998;19:485-94.
Wilson AD, McLean JW. Glass-ionomer cement. Berlin: Quintessence Publishing Co; 1988.
Genaro LE, Anovazzi G, Hebling J, Zuanon ACC. Glass ionomer cement modified by resin with incorporation of nanohydroxyapatite: in vitro evaluation of physical-biological properties. Nanomaterials (Basel). 2020 Jul 19;10(7):1412.
Bhavana K, Uloopi KS, Vinay C, Chaitanya P, Ramesh MV, Ahalya P. A randomized controlled trial evaluating the clinical performance of bioactive restorative material and resin-modified glass ionomer cement in carious primary molar restorations. Int J Clin Pediatr Dent. 2024 Oct;17(10):1109-13.
Mhole M, Tandon S, Gupta S, Gosavi H, Ali AR, Kaul M. Evaluation of clinical efficacy of Cention N and Tetric N-Ceram in class I carious lesion in primary mandibular molars. J Oral Biol Craniofac Res. 2025 Nov-Dec;15(6):1231-7.
Adsul PS, Dhawan P, Tuli A, Khanduri N, Singh A. Evaluation and comparison of physical properties of Cention N with other restorative materials in artificial saliva: an in vitro study. Int J Clin Pediatr Dent. 2022 May-Jun;15(3):350-5.
Menezes-Silva R, Cabral RN, Pascotto RC, Borges AFS, Martins CC, Navarro MFL, Sidhu SK, Leal SC. Mechanical and optical properties of conventional restorative glass-ionomer cements – a systematic review. J Appl Oral Sci. 2019 Feb 21;27:e2018357.
Khoroushi M, Keshani F. A review of glass-ionomers: from conventional glass-ionomer to bioactive glass-ionomer. Dent Res J (Isfahan). 2013 Jul;10(4):411-20.
Tay WM, Lynch E. Glass-ionomer (polyalkenoate) cements. Part 1. Development, setting reaction, structure and types. J Ir Dent Assoc. 1989 Jun;35(2):53-7.
Taher NM, Ateyah NZ. Shear bond strength of resin modified glass ionomer cement bonded to different tooth-colored restorative materials. J Contemp Dent Pract. 2007 Feb 1;8(2):25-34.
Prabhakar AR, Raj S, Raju OS. Comparison of shear bond strength of composite, compomer and resin modified glass ionomer in primary and permanent teeth: an in vitro study. J Indian Soc Pedod Prev Dent. 2003 Sep;21(3):86-94.
Sulimany AM, Aldowsari MK, Bin Saleh S, Alotaibi SS, Alhelal BM, Hamdan HM. 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 (Basel). 2024 Dec 20;17(24):6230.
Dawood AE, Alkhalidi EF, Saeed MA. Shear bond strength between conventional composite resin and alkasite-based restoration used in sandwich technique: an in vitro study. J Int Soc Prev Community Dent. 2024 Apr 29;14(2):161-6.
