A comparative study of polydopamine vs. glass ionomer cement for adhesion mechanisms on enamel and dentin using SEM and shear bond strength evaluation
Abstract Polydopamine (PD), inspired by the wet adhesion mechanism of mussel foot proteins, has emerged as a promising adhesive material with wide-ranging applications. This study aimed to compare the adhesive properties of PD and Glass Ionomer Cement (GIC) on enamel and dentin substrates, evaluatin...
Saved in:
| Main Authors: | , , , , , , , , |
|---|---|
| Format: | Article |
| Language: | English |
| Published: |
Nature Portfolio
2025-01-01
|
| Series: | Scientific Reports |
| Subjects: | |
| Online Access: | https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-025-85735-3 |
| Tags: |
Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
|
| _version_ | 1832594705806786560 |
|---|---|
| author | Lakshmi Nidhi Rao Soumyajit Sarkar Aditya Shetty Heeresh Shetty Shraddha Shetty Roshan Noor Mohamed Sakeenabi Basha Ajinkya Pawar Mohmed Isaqali Karobari |
| author_facet | Lakshmi Nidhi Rao Soumyajit Sarkar Aditya Shetty Heeresh Shetty Shraddha Shetty Roshan Noor Mohamed Sakeenabi Basha Ajinkya Pawar Mohmed Isaqali Karobari |
| author_sort | Lakshmi Nidhi Rao |
| collection | DOAJ |
| description | Abstract Polydopamine (PD), inspired by the wet adhesion mechanism of mussel foot proteins, has emerged as a promising adhesive material with wide-ranging applications. This study aimed to compare the adhesive properties of PD and Glass Ionomer Cement (GIC) on enamel and dentin substrates, evaluating PD’s potential as an alternative adhesive in dental practice. A total of 120 human premolars were prepared, with 80 teeth allocated for Scanning Electron Microscopy (SEM) analysis and 40 teeth reserved for shear bond strength testing. The 80 teeth for SEM were divided into four groups (n = 20 per group) based on the adhesive used (PD or GIC) and the substrate (enamel or dentin). The bond interfaces were analysed under SEM following adhesive self-polymerization. Statistical analysis using the Mann-Whitney U test (p < 0.05) revealed that GIC and PD showed more microcracks when bonded to dentin compared to enamel, with the PD-enamel group showing the fewest microcracks. For shear bond strength testing, the 40 remaining teeth were divided into four groups (n = 10 per group) according to the same adhesive-substrate combinations. The results analysed using the Kruskal-Wallis test (p < 0.001), indicated that PD bonded to enamel exhibited the highest bond strength, followed by PD-dentin, GIC-enamel, and GIC-dentin. These findings were consistent with the SEM analysis, demonstrating that PD provides superior bonding to enamel and outperforms GIC in both bond strength and interface quality. This study suggests that PD is a viable alternative to GIC, particularly for enamel bonding, and further research is recommended to assess its long-term clinical performance. |
| format | Article |
| id | doaj-art-8dc7449d3aa64a1f973425a1b008594f |
| institution | Kabale University |
| issn | 2045-2322 |
| language | English |
| publishDate | 2025-01-01 |
| publisher | Nature Portfolio |
| record_format | Article |
| series | Scientific Reports |
| spelling | doaj-art-8dc7449d3aa64a1f973425a1b008594f2025-01-19T12:23:52ZengNature PortfolioScientific Reports2045-23222025-01-011511810.1038/s41598-025-85735-3A comparative study of polydopamine vs. glass ionomer cement for adhesion mechanisms on enamel and dentin using SEM and shear bond strength evaluationLakshmi Nidhi Rao0Soumyajit Sarkar1Aditya Shetty2Heeresh Shetty3Shraddha Shetty4Roshan Noor Mohamed5Sakeenabi Basha6Ajinkya Pawar7Mohmed Isaqali Karobari8Department of Conservative Dentistry and Endodontics, AB Shetty Memorial Institute of Dental Sciences, NITTE Deemed to be UniversityDepartment of Conservative Dentistry and Endodontics, AB Shetty Memorial Institute of Dental Sciences, NITTE Deemed to be UniversityDepartment of Conservative Dentistry and Endodontics, AB Shetty Memorial Institute of Dental Sciences, NITTE Deemed to be UniversityDepartment of Conservative Dentistry & Endodontics, Nair Hospital Dental CollegeDepartment of Community Medicine, KSHEMA, NITTE Deemed to be UniversityDepartment of Pediatric Dentistry, Faculty of Dentistry, Taif UniversityPreventive Dentistry Department (Community Dentistry Division), Faculty of Dentistry, Taif UniversityDepartment of Conservative Dentistry & Endodontics, Nair Hospital Dental CollegeDepartment of Conservative Dentistry and Endodontics, Saveetha Dental College and Hospitals, Saveetha Institute of Medical and Technical Sciences, Saveetha UniversityAbstract Polydopamine (PD), inspired by the wet adhesion mechanism of mussel foot proteins, has emerged as a promising adhesive material with wide-ranging applications. This study aimed to compare the adhesive properties of PD and Glass Ionomer Cement (GIC) on enamel and dentin substrates, evaluating PD’s potential as an alternative adhesive in dental practice. A total of 120 human premolars were prepared, with 80 teeth allocated for Scanning Electron Microscopy (SEM) analysis and 40 teeth reserved for shear bond strength testing. The 80 teeth for SEM were divided into four groups (n = 20 per group) based on the adhesive used (PD or GIC) and the substrate (enamel or dentin). The bond interfaces were analysed under SEM following adhesive self-polymerization. Statistical analysis using the Mann-Whitney U test (p < 0.05) revealed that GIC and PD showed more microcracks when bonded to dentin compared to enamel, with the PD-enamel group showing the fewest microcracks. For shear bond strength testing, the 40 remaining teeth were divided into four groups (n = 10 per group) according to the same adhesive-substrate combinations. The results analysed using the Kruskal-Wallis test (p < 0.001), indicated that PD bonded to enamel exhibited the highest bond strength, followed by PD-dentin, GIC-enamel, and GIC-dentin. These findings were consistent with the SEM analysis, demonstrating that PD provides superior bonding to enamel and outperforms GIC in both bond strength and interface quality. This study suggests that PD is a viable alternative to GIC, particularly for enamel bonding, and further research is recommended to assess its long-term clinical performance.https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-025-85735-3Polydopamine (PD)Glass Ionomer cement (GIC)Dental adhesivesBond StrengthScanning electron microscopy (SEM)Shear bond strength |
| spellingShingle | Lakshmi Nidhi Rao Soumyajit Sarkar Aditya Shetty Heeresh Shetty Shraddha Shetty Roshan Noor Mohamed Sakeenabi Basha Ajinkya Pawar Mohmed Isaqali Karobari A comparative study of polydopamine vs. glass ionomer cement for adhesion mechanisms on enamel and dentin using SEM and shear bond strength evaluation Scientific Reports Polydopamine (PD) Glass Ionomer cement (GIC) Dental adhesives Bond Strength Scanning electron microscopy (SEM) Shear bond strength |
| title | A comparative study of polydopamine vs. glass ionomer cement for adhesion mechanisms on enamel and dentin using SEM and shear bond strength evaluation |
| title_full | A comparative study of polydopamine vs. glass ionomer cement for adhesion mechanisms on enamel and dentin using SEM and shear bond strength evaluation |
| title_fullStr | A comparative study of polydopamine vs. glass ionomer cement for adhesion mechanisms on enamel and dentin using SEM and shear bond strength evaluation |
| title_full_unstemmed | A comparative study of polydopamine vs. glass ionomer cement for adhesion mechanisms on enamel and dentin using SEM and shear bond strength evaluation |
| title_short | A comparative study of polydopamine vs. glass ionomer cement for adhesion mechanisms on enamel and dentin using SEM and shear bond strength evaluation |
| title_sort | comparative study of polydopamine vs glass ionomer cement for adhesion mechanisms on enamel and dentin using sem and shear bond strength evaluation |
| topic | Polydopamine (PD) Glass Ionomer cement (GIC) Dental adhesives Bond Strength Scanning electron microscopy (SEM) Shear bond strength |
| url | https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-025-85735-3 |
| work_keys_str_mv | AT lakshminidhirao acomparativestudyofpolydopaminevsglassionomercementforadhesionmechanismsonenamelanddentinusingsemandshearbondstrengthevaluation AT soumyajitsarkar acomparativestudyofpolydopaminevsglassionomercementforadhesionmechanismsonenamelanddentinusingsemandshearbondstrengthevaluation AT adityashetty acomparativestudyofpolydopaminevsglassionomercementforadhesionmechanismsonenamelanddentinusingsemandshearbondstrengthevaluation AT heereshshetty acomparativestudyofpolydopaminevsglassionomercementforadhesionmechanismsonenamelanddentinusingsemandshearbondstrengthevaluation AT shraddhashetty acomparativestudyofpolydopaminevsglassionomercementforadhesionmechanismsonenamelanddentinusingsemandshearbondstrengthevaluation AT roshannoormohamed acomparativestudyofpolydopaminevsglassionomercementforadhesionmechanismsonenamelanddentinusingsemandshearbondstrengthevaluation AT sakeenabibasha acomparativestudyofpolydopaminevsglassionomercementforadhesionmechanismsonenamelanddentinusingsemandshearbondstrengthevaluation AT ajinkyapawar acomparativestudyofpolydopaminevsglassionomercementforadhesionmechanismsonenamelanddentinusingsemandshearbondstrengthevaluation AT mohmedisaqalikarobari acomparativestudyofpolydopaminevsglassionomercementforadhesionmechanismsonenamelanddentinusingsemandshearbondstrengthevaluation AT lakshminidhirao comparativestudyofpolydopaminevsglassionomercementforadhesionmechanismsonenamelanddentinusingsemandshearbondstrengthevaluation AT soumyajitsarkar comparativestudyofpolydopaminevsglassionomercementforadhesionmechanismsonenamelanddentinusingsemandshearbondstrengthevaluation AT adityashetty comparativestudyofpolydopaminevsglassionomercementforadhesionmechanismsonenamelanddentinusingsemandshearbondstrengthevaluation AT heereshshetty comparativestudyofpolydopaminevsglassionomercementforadhesionmechanismsonenamelanddentinusingsemandshearbondstrengthevaluation AT shraddhashetty comparativestudyofpolydopaminevsglassionomercementforadhesionmechanismsonenamelanddentinusingsemandshearbondstrengthevaluation AT roshannoormohamed comparativestudyofpolydopaminevsglassionomercementforadhesionmechanismsonenamelanddentinusingsemandshearbondstrengthevaluation AT sakeenabibasha comparativestudyofpolydopaminevsglassionomercementforadhesionmechanismsonenamelanddentinusingsemandshearbondstrengthevaluation AT ajinkyapawar comparativestudyofpolydopaminevsglassionomercementforadhesionmechanismsonenamelanddentinusingsemandshearbondstrengthevaluation AT mohmedisaqalikarobari comparativestudyofpolydopaminevsglassionomercementforadhesionmechanismsonenamelanddentinusingsemandshearbondstrengthevaluation |