Repair of resin nanoceramic: Effect of aging and surface treatments (original) (raw)
Repair bond strengths of non-aged and aged resin nanoceramics
PURPOSE. To explore the influence of different surface conditionings on surface changes and the influence of surface treatments and aging on the bond strengths of composites to non-aged and aged resin nanoceramics. MATERIALS AND METHODS. Rectangular-shaped non-aged and aged (5000 thermocycles) resin nanoceramic specimens (Lava Ultimate) (n = 63, each) were divided into 3 groups according to surface treatments (untreated, air abrasion, or silica coating) (n = 21). The surface roughness was measured and scanning electron microscopy was used to examine one specimen from each group. Afterwards, the specimens were repaired with a composite resin (Filtek Z550) and half were sent for aging (5000 thermocycles, n = 10, each). Shear bond strengths and failure types were evaluated. Roughness and bond strength were investigated by two-and three-way analysis of variance, respectively. The correlation between the roughness and bond strength was investigated by Pearson's correlation test. RESULTS. Surface-treated samples had higher roughness compared with the untreated specimens (P=.000). For the non-aged resin nanoceramic groups, aging was a significant factor for bond strength; for the aged resin nanoceramic groups, surface treatment and aging were significant factors. The failures were mostly adhesive after thermal cycling, except in the non-aged untreated group and the aged air-abraded group, which had mostly mixed failures. Roughness and bond strength were positively correlated (P=.003). CONCLUSION. Surface treatment is not required for the repair of non-aged resin nanoceramic; for the repair of aged resin nanoceramic restorations, air abrasion is recommended. [ J Adv Prosthodont 2017;]
Repair potential of a laboratory-processed nano-hybrid resin composite
Journal of Oral Science, 2008
The purpose of this study was to compare the 24-h composite-to-composite microtensile bond strength of Gradia Forte (GF) repaired with the same or a different material after different surface treatments. Different groups were set up, in which composite blocks of GF were subjected to the following treatments: Group 1, sandblasting with 50-µm aluminum oxide and 37% phosphoric acid etching (PA); Group 2, bur roughening and etching with 37% PA; Group 3, etching with 37% PA only. In all groups, a bonding resin was used as an intermediate agent prior to layering of the repair material (Gradia Direct (GD), Gradia (G), or GF). Bond strengths were then determined and analysed statistically. Scanning electron microscopy (SEM) evaluation of substrates and bonded interfaces was also performed. Surface treatment (P < 0.001) and repair materials (P < 0.001) were factors that significantly affected repair strength, whereas their interaction (P = 0.31) had no significant effect. Group 3 showed significantly superior repair strength to Groups 1 and 2, whereas Group 2 showed significantly weaker repair strength to Groups 1 and 3. Irrespective of surface treatment, GD and G gave similar results, which were better than those obtained using GF. The lowest probability of failure was found for GD and G in Group 3, whereas the highest was found for GF in Groups 1 and 2. Premature failures occurred mainly with G and GF. No pre-testing failures were found in the sandblasting/GD subgroup. Surface-treated composites showed different textures under SEM, whereas composite-repair bonds showed comparable interfacial features. (J. Oral Sci. 50, 403-412, 2008)
Journal of Esthetic and Restorative Dentistry, 2009
ABSTRACTBackground: The optimal surface treatment is an important factor in repairing failed restorations.Purpose: The aim of this study was to compare the effect of different surface treatments in combination with bonding agents on the repair of an aged nano-filled resin composite.Materials and Methods: Resin composite disks (N = 180; Filtek Supreme XT, 3M ESPE, St. Paul, MO, USA), 6 mm in diameter and 2 mm in height, were prepared. After accelerated aging of 300 hours in a weathering tester, the specimens were randomly divided into six groups of 30 each, according to the following surface treatment methods: no surface treatment (control group, C), 38% phosphoric acid gel (PA), 9.6% hydrofluoric acid gel (HF), abrasion with sodium bicarbonate particles (SB), aluminum trioxide particle abrasion (AT), and diamond bur (DB). Fresh resin composite was bonded to the treated surfaces with one of two bonding agents (Prime&Bond NT, Dentsply/Caulk, Milford, DE, USA; Clearfil SE Bond, Kuraray Co./J., Morita, Japan). The effect of each surface treatment on the bond strength was determined by a shear bond test. Data were analyzed by two-way analysis of variance and Tukey's post hoc test (p = 0.05).Results: Significant differences were found between the groups, for both surface treatment and bonding agent (p < 0.05). For all surface treatments, the shear bond strengths (SBSs) with Clearfil SE were higher than those with Prime&Bond (p < 0.05). The mean SBS values for the surface treatment groups were, from highest to lowest, 19.3 (DB), 18.7 (AT), 17.4 (SB), 15.2 (HF), 9.2 (C), and 8.8 MPa (PA).Conclusions: Surface treatment with DB or AT was more effective than with the other surface treatments tested for the repair of nano-filled composites. The adhesive used as an intermediate agent is also important in composite repair.Background: The optimal surface treatment is an important factor in repairing failed restorations.Purpose: The aim of this study was to compare the effect of different surface treatments in combination with bonding agents on the repair of an aged nano-filled resin composite.Materials and Methods: Resin composite disks (N = 180; Filtek Supreme XT, 3M ESPE, St. Paul, MO, USA), 6 mm in diameter and 2 mm in height, were prepared. After accelerated aging of 300 hours in a weathering tester, the specimens were randomly divided into six groups of 30 each, according to the following surface treatment methods: no surface treatment (control group, C), 38% phosphoric acid gel (PA), 9.6% hydrofluoric acid gel (HF), abrasion with sodium bicarbonate particles (SB), aluminum trioxide particle abrasion (AT), and diamond bur (DB). Fresh resin composite was bonded to the treated surfaces with one of two bonding agents (Prime&Bond NT, Dentsply/Caulk, Milford, DE, USA; Clearfil SE Bond, Kuraray Co./J., Morita, Japan). The effect of each surface treatment on the bond strength was determined by a shear bond test. Data were analyzed by two-way analysis of variance and Tukey's post hoc test (p = 0.05).Results: Significant differences were found between the groups, for both surface treatment and bonding agent (p < 0.05). For all surface treatments, the shear bond strengths (SBSs) with Clearfil SE were higher than those with Prime&Bond (p < 0.05). The mean SBS values for the surface treatment groups were, from highest to lowest, 19.3 (DB), 18.7 (AT), 17.4 (SB), 15.2 (HF), 9.2 (C), and 8.8 MPa (PA).Conclusions: Surface treatment with DB or AT was more effective than with the other surface treatments tested for the repair of nano-filled composites. The adhesive used as an intermediate agent is also important in composite repair.CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCESurface treatment with a diamond bur plus a proper adhesive agent is a simple, efficient, and cost-effective procedure for enhancing the shear bond strength of a repaired nano-hybrid resin composite.Surface treatment with a diamond bur plus a proper adhesive agent is a simple, efficient, and cost-effective procedure for enhancing the shear bond strength of a repaired nano-hybrid resin composite.