Related Experiment Video
Updated: Jan 19, 2026

Application of Light-cured Dental Adhesive Resin for Mounting Electrodes or Microdialysis Probes in Chronic Experiments
Published on: July 30, 2007
Shear Bond Comparison between 4 Bioceramic Materials and Dual-cure Composite Resin
Kelley A Hursh1, Timothy C Kirkpatrick2, Jared W Cardon1
1Department of Endodontics, Keesler Air Force Base, Biloxi, Mississippi.
Introduction:
Bioceramic materials have shown biologic and physical properties favorable for regenerative treatment. A key to treatment success is an adequate restoration to prevent microleakage; however, research is limited regarding the bond strength between restorative and bioceramic materials used in regenerative procedures. This study compared the bond strength between 4 bioceramic materials and a dual-cure composite resin.
Methods:
Eighty wells in Teflon (ePlastics, San Diego, CA) blocks were filled with bioceramic materials representing 4 groups: White ProRoot mineral trioxide aggregate (MTA) (Dentsply Tulsa Dental, Tulsa, OK), Biodentine (Septodont, Saint Maur des Fosses, France), EndoSequence Root Repair Material Fast Set Putty (Brasseler USA, Savannah, GA), and NeoMTA (Avalon Biomed Inc, Houston, TX). After allowing samples to set according to the manufacturers' instructions, exposed surfaces of the bioceramic materials were prepared using ClearFil SE Bond (Kuraray America, Inc., New York, NY) followed by restoration with ClearFil DC Core Plus (Kuraray America, Inc.). To test shear bond strength, each block was secured in a universal testing machine, and the crosshead was advanced at 0.5 mm/min until fracture. Newton peak force was recorded and megapascals calculated followed by data comparison.
Results:
The mean shear bond strengths between ClearFil DC Core Plus and the bioceramic materials were as follows: White ProRoot MTA, 7.96 MPa; Biodentine, 9.18 MPa; EndoSequence Root Repair Material Fast Set Putty, 4.47 MPa; and NeoMTA, 5.72 MPa. White ProRoot MTA and Biodentine were statistically similar, with a higher stress bond strength than NeoMTA, which had a statistically greater bond strength than EndoSequence Root Repair Material. All these values were lower than typical bond strengths shown for dentin-composite resin bonding.
Conclusions:
The choice of which bioceramic material to use in regenerative procedures should be based on factors other than the bond between that material and the overlying coronal resin restoration.
Related Concept Videos
16:30Application of Light-cured Dental Adhesive Resin for Mounting Electrodes or Microdialysis Probes in Chronic Experiments
05:42Detection and Removal of Tooth-Colored Composite Resin Using the Fluorescence-Aided Identification Technique
09:38Strain Sensing Based on Multiscale Composite Materials Reinforced with Graphene Nanoplatelets
06:44From Molecules to Materials: Engineering New Ionic Liquid Crystals Through Halogen Bonding
06:26Experimental Implementation of a New Composite Fabrication Method: Exposing Bare Fibers on the Composite Surface by the Soft Layer Method
05:30Roughness Impact of Piezoelectric Dental Scaler on Two Distinct Flowable Composite Filling Materials

