Moradian M, Saadat M, Khoubani M. The Effect of Resin-modified Glass Ionomer Containing Bacterial Cellulose Nanocrystal as a Base on the Fracture Resistance of Class II Restorations. J Clin Exp Dent. 2026;18(1):e8-14.

doi:10.4317/jced.63458

___

References

1. Wafaie RA, Ahmed B, Mahmoud SH. Fracture resistance of molars with class II MOD cavities restored with bulk-fill, no-cap flowable bulk-fill, and conventional resin composite restorative systems after 6-months water storage. BMC Oral Health. 2025;25(1):741. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12903-025-05951-1 PMid:40394542 PMCid:PMC12093850

2. Wu MK, van der Sluis LW, Wesselink PR. Comparison of mandibular premolars and canines with respect to their resistance to vertical root fracture. J Dent. 2004;32(4):265-8. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jdent.2003.12.002 PMid:15053908

3. Krämer N, Reinelt C, Frankenberger R. Ten-year Clinical Performance of Posterior Resin Composite Restorations. J Adhes Dent. 2015;17(5):433-41.

4. Pallesen U, van Dijken JW. A randomized controlled 30 years follow up of three conventional resin composites in Class II restorations. Dent Mater. 2015;31(10):1232-44. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dental.2015.08.146 PMid:26321155

5. Christensen GJ. Longevity of posterior tooth dental restorations. J Am Dent Assoc. 2005;136(2):201-3. https://doi.org/10.14219/jada.archive.2005.0142 PMid:15782524

6. Nam SH, Chang HS, Min KS, Lee Y, Cho HW, Bae JM. Effect of the number of residual walls on fracture resistances, failure patterns, and photoelasticity of simulated premolars restored with or without fiber-reinforced composite posts. J Endod. 2010;36(2):297-301. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joen.2009.10.010 PMid:20113794

7. Meng QF, Chen YM, Guang HB, Yip KH, Smales RJ. Effect of a ferrule and increased clinical crown length on the in vitro fracture resistance of premolars restored using two dowel-and-core systems. Oper Dent. 2007;32(6):595-601. https://doi.org/10.2341/06-169 PMid:18051010

8. Soares PV, Santos-Filho PC, Martins LR, Soares CJ. Influence of restorative technique on the biomechanical behavior of endodontically treated maxillary premolars. Part I: fracture resistance and fracture mode. J Prosthet Dent. 2008;99(1):30-7. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0022-3913(08)60006-2 PMid:18182183

9. Knibbs PJ. The clinical performance of a glass polyalkenoate (glass ionomer) cement used in a 'sandwich' technique with a composite resin to restore Class II cavities. Br Dent J. 1992;172(3):103-7. https://doi.org/10.1038/sj.bdj.4807776 PMid:1739506

10. Chan T, Küçükkaya Eren S, Wong R, Parashos P. In vitro fracture strength and patterns in root-filled teeth restored with different base materials. Aust Dent J. 2018;63(1):99-108. https://doi.org/10.1111/adj.12570 PMid:28941281

11. Hernandez R, Bader S, Boston D, Trope M. Resistance to fracture of endodontically treated premolars restored with new generation dentine bonding systems. Int Endod J. 1994;27(6):281-4. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2591.1994.tb00269.x PMid:7751059

12. Wendt SL, Jr., Harris BM, Hunt TE. Resistance to cusp fracture in endodontically treated teeth. Dent Mater. 1987;3(5):232-5. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0109-5641(87)80078-7 PMid:3479358

13. Banomyong D, Harnirattisai C, Burrow MF. Posterior resin composite restorations with or without resin-modified, glass-ionomer cement lining: a 1-year randomized, clinical trial. J Investig Clin Dent. 2011;2(1):63-9. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.2041-1626.2010.00036.x PMid:25427330

14. Ismail HS, Ali AI, Garcia-Godoy F. Effect of surface treatment on glass ionomers in sandwich restorations: a systematic review and meta-analysis of laboratory studies. Restor Dent Endod. 2025;50(2):e13. https://doi.org/10.5395/rde.2025.50.e13 PMid:40234007 PMCid:PMC12151766

15. Saadat M, Moradian M, Mirshekari B. Evaluation of the Surface Hardness and Roughness of a Resin-Modified Glass Ionomer Cement Containing Bacterial Cellulose Nanocrystals. Int J Dent. 2021;2021:8231473. https://doi.org/10.1155/2021/8231473 PMid:34931124 PMCid:PMC8684512

16. Mohammadi N, Fattah Z, Borazjani LV. Nano-cellulose Reinforced Glass Ionomer Restorations: An In Vitro study. Int Dent J. 2023;73(2):243-50. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.identj.2022.07.013 PMid:36085100 PMCid:PMC10023591

17. George J, Sabapathi SN. Cellulose nanocrystals: synthesis, functional properties, and applications. Nanotechnol Sci Appl. 2015;8:45-54. https://doi.org/10.2147/NSA.S64386 PMid:26604715 PMCid:PMC4639556

18. Moradian M, Nosrat Abadi M, Jafarpour D, Saadat M. Effects of Bacterial Cellulose Nanocrystals on the Mechanical Properties of Resin-Modified Glass Ionomer Cements. Eur J Dent. 2021;15(2):197-201. https://doi.org/10.1055/s-0040-1717051 PMid:33126285 PMCid:PMC8184268

19. Moradian M, Jafarpour D, Saadat M, Tahmasebi F. The effect of bacterial cellulose nanocrystals on the shear bond strength of resin modified glass ionomer cement to dentin. J Clin Exp Dent. 2021;13(8):e784-e8. https://doi.org/10.4317/jced.58153 PMid:34512917 PMCid:PMC8412803

20. Magne P, Milani T. Short-fiber Reinforced MOD Restorations of Molars with Severely Undermined Cusps. J Adhes Dent. 2023;25:99-106.

21. Ibrahim RH, ElKassas DW, Nabih SM, Salem MN, Haridy R. The Impact of Different Fiber Placement Techniques on the Fracture Resistance of Premolars Restored with Direct Resin Composite, In Vitro Study. J Funct Biomater. 2025;16(6). https://doi.org/10.3390/jfb16060225 PMid:40558911 PMCid:PMC12194444

22. Ciavoi G, Mărgărit R, Todor L, Bodnar D, Dina MN, Tărlungeanu DI, et al. Base Materials' Influence on Fracture Resistance of Molars with MOD Cavities. Materials (Basel). 2021;14(18). https://doi.org/10.3390/ma14185242 PMid:34576466 PMCid:PMC8471061

23. Abdulamir SW, Majeed MA. Fracture Resistance of Endodontically Treated Maxillary Premolar Teeth Restored with Wallpapering Technique: A Comparative In Vitro Study. Int J Dent. 2023;2023:6159338. https://doi.org/10.1155/2023/6159338 PMid:37143851 PMCid:PMC10154104

24. Abdelfattah RA, Nawar NN, Kataia EM, Saber SM. How loss of tooth structure impacts the biomechanical behavior of a single-rooted maxillary premolar: FEA. Odontology. 2024;112(1):279-86. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10266-023-00829-6 PMid:37394683 PMCid:PMC10776703

25. Al-Nahedh HN. Effects of Resin-modified Glass Ionomer Cement and Flowable Bulk-fill Base on the Fracture Resistance of Class II Restorations: An Original Laboratory Experimental Study. J Contemp Dent Pract. 2021;22(4):342-8. https://doi.org/10.5005/jp-journals-10024-3068 PMid:34267000

26. Lassila L, Keulemans F, Vallittu PK, Garoushi S. Characterization of restorative short-fiber reinforced dental composites. Dent Mater J. 2020;39(6):992-9. https://doi.org/10.4012/dmj.2019-088 PMid:32779605

27. Soubhagya M, Mallikarjun Goud K, Deepak BS, Thakur S, Nandini TN, Arun J, et al. Comparative in vitro evaluation of internal adaptation of resin-modified glass ionomer, flowable composite and bonding agent applied as a liner under composite restoration: A scanning electron microscope study. Journal of International Oral Health : JIOH. 2015;7:27 - 31.

28. Baldi A, Rossi T, Comba A, Monticone L, Paolone G, Sannino I, et al. Three-Dimensional Internal Voids and Marginal Adaptation in Deep Margin Elevation Technique: Efficiency of Highly Filled Flowable Composites. J Adhes Dent. 2024;26:223-30.

29. Güray Efes B, Yaman BC, Gümüştaş B, Tıryakı M. The effects of glass ionomer and flowable composite liners on the fracture resistance of open-sandwich class II restorations. Dent Mater J. 2013;32(6):877-82. https://doi.org/10.4012/dmj.2013-053 PMid:24240900

30. Shafiei F, Doozandeh M, Ghaffaripour D. Effect of Different Liners on Fracture Resistance of Premolars Restored with Conventional and Short Fiber-Reinforced Composite Resins. J Prosthodont. 2019;28(1):e304-e9. https://doi.org/10.1111/jopr.12743