Influence of material and surface treatment on composite repair shear bond strength (original) (raw)
Related papers
Repair bond strength in aged methacrylate- and silorane-based composites
The journal of adhesive dentistry, 2013
To evaluate the tensile bond strength at repaired interfaces of aged dental composites, either dimethacrylate- or silorane-based, when subjected to different surface treatments. The composites used were Filtek P60 (methacrylate-based, 3M ESPE) and Filtek P90 (silorane-based, 3M ESPE), of which 50 slabs were stored for 6 months at 37°C. The surface of adhesion was abraded with a 600-grit silicone paper and the slabs repaired with the respective composite, according to the following surface treatment protocols: G1: no treatment; G2: adhesive application; G3: silane + adhesive; G4: sandblasting (Al2O3) + adhesive; G5: sandblasting (Al2O3) + silane + adhesive. After 24-h storage in distilled water at 37°C, tensile bond strength (TBS) was determined in a universal testing machine (Instron 4411) at a crosshead speed of 0.5 mm/min. The original data were submitted to two-way ANOVA and Tukey's test (α = 5%). The methacrylate-based composite presented a statistically significantly higher...
Operative Dentistry, 2011
Objective: This study evaluated the effectiveness of three surface treatments on repair shear bond strength (SBS) of aged composites. Methods: 120 cylindrical samples made of a micro-hybrid composite (Clearfil AP-X) were randomly assigned to one control and three experimental groups (n=30) after water storage (3 weeks). All experimental groups included surface roughening with diamond burs. The subsequent treatments were: group1. Only (self-etching) bonding, group2. Silane and bonding, and group3: phosphoric-acid etching, silane, and bonding. The composites were repaired with the same brand and were aged (water storage [48h] and thermocycling [2000 cycles]). Each group was divided to two subgroups of n=15: New: water storage at 37°C for one week; Old: water storage for 6 months. The SBS was tested. The fracture mode was assessed under 40x magnification. Results: the mean SBS values (MPa) for the study subgroups were: Control (new:3.38±1.6, old:1±0.76), group1 (new:27.3±1.8, old:25.7±1.9), group2 (new:59.1±7.9, old:50.8±4.6), and group3 (new:48.5±8.6, old:39±3.5). A significant influence of the conditioning method and duration of water storage was observed (p<0.01 [two-way ANOVA]). The SBS of all groups were significantly different from those of the other ones (all p values<0.01 [Tukey's]). The longer time of water storage reduced the repair bond strength in all of the experimental groups, significantly (p<0.01). While the groups control and 1 showed approximately 100% and 75% adhesive failures, respectively, the group 2 and 3 respectively demonstrated about 75% mixed and cohesive failures. The Weibull analysis showed that the group 2 and 1 had the lowest and the highest probabilities of failure among the experimental groups, respectively. Conclusion: All the experimental groups produced acceptable SBS levels, however the use of silane and bonding system showed the most superior results. Acid etching reduced the SBS. Clinical Significance: To achieve a durable composite-composite bond, it is highly recommended besides selective grinding of the surface to be repaired to use specific combinations of silane primers and bonding agents, without the need for acid etching the composite surface.
Repair Strength in Simulated Restorations of Methacrylate-or Silorane- Based Composite Resins
The study verified the bond strength in simulated dental restorations of silorane-or methacrylate-based composites repaired with methacrylate-based composite. Methacrylate-(P60) or silorane-based (P90) composites were used associated with adhesive (Adper Single Bond 2). Twenty-four hemi-hourglass-shaped samples were repaired with each composite (n=12). Samples were divided according to groups: G1= P60 + Adper Single Bond 2+ P60; G2= P60 + Adper Single Bond 2 + P60 + thermocycling; G3= P90 + Adper Single Bond 2 + P60; and G4= P90 + Adper Single Bond 2 + P60 + thermocycling. G1 and G3 were submitted to tensile test 24 h after repair procedure, and G2 and G4 after submitted to 5,000 thermocycles at 5 and 55 °C for 30 s in each bath. Tensile bond strength test was accomplished in an universal testing machine at crosshead speed of 0.5 mm/min. Data (MPa) were analyzed by two-way ANOVA and Tukey's test (5%). Sample failure pattern (adhesive, cohesive in resin or mixed) was evaluated by stereomicroscope at 30× and images were obtained in SEM. Bond strength values of methacrylate-based composite samples repaired with methacrylate-based composite (G1 and G2) were greater than for silorane-based samples (G3 and G4). Thermocycling decreased the bond strength values for both composites. All groups showed predominance of adhesive failures and no cohesive failure in composite resin was observed. In conclusion, higher bond strength values were observed in methacrylate-based resin samples and greater percentage of adhesive failures in silorane-based resin samples, both composites repaired with methacrylate-based resin.
Evaluating Various Preparation Protocols on the Shear Bond Strength of Repaired Composite
The journal of contemporary dental practice, 2017
The aim of this study is to evaluate the effect of different combinations of various surface treatments on the shear bond strength (SBS) of repaired composite resin. A total of 122 composite samples were prepared from Filtek Z350 XT. Samples were light cured and stored for 6 weeks. Surface treatment of old composite was done in five groups: Group I: bur roughening + phosphoric acid etching, group II: bur roughening + hydrofluoric acid etching + silane coupling agent, group II: air abrasion + phosphoric acid etching, group IV: air abrasion + phosphoric acid etching + silane coupling agent, group V: air abrasion + hydrofluoric acid etching + silane coupling agent. Bonding agent was applied to all surface-treated old composites and light cured. The fresh composite resin was bonded to treated surfaces and cured and stored in water at 37°C for 6 weeks. Shear bond strength was measured by a universal testing machine. Shear bond strength values of all groups were not statistically signific...
Brazilian Oral Research, 2011
The purpose of the present study was to assess the bond strength of composite resin repairs subjected to different surface treatments and accelerated artificial aging. 192 cylindrical samples (CSs) were prepared and divided into 24 groups (n = 8). Half of the CSs were stored in water for 24 h, and the other half were subjected to C-UV accelerated aging for non-metallic specimens. The treatments were phosphoric acid + silane + adhesive (PSA); phosphoric acid + adhesive (PA); diamond bur + phosphoric acid + silane + adhesive (DPSA); diamond bur + phosphoric acid + adhesive (DPA); air abrasion + phosphoric acid + silane + adhesive (APSA); and air abrasion + phosphoric acid + adhesive (APA). The repair was performed and the specimens were again aged as described above. A control group (n = 8) was established and did not receive any type of aging or surface treatment. The specimens were loaded to failure in shear mode with a crosshead speed of 0.5 mm/min until fracture. Data were analyzed by one-way ANOVA/Tukey's test (p < 0.05). No statistically significant differences were found among DPSA, DPA, APSA, APA, and the control group. The aged PSA and PA achieved low bonding values and were statistically different from the control group, whereas the nonaged PSA and PA presented no statistically significant difference from the control group. Repairs with the proposed surface treatments were viable on both recent and aged restorations; however, phosphoric acid + adhesive alone were effective only on recent restorations.
Influence of aging on direct resin composite repair bond
kssfp.jp
The objective of this study was to evaluate the effect of aging on repair bond strength of direct resin composites. Materials and Methods: Total of 45 (D: 9 mm and L: 4 mm) composite specimens were prepared (Clearfil AP-X). Forty-two specimens were kept for storage in Milli-Q water and in human saliva at 37ºC for 2, 4, and 12 weeks. Rest three non-aged specimens (L: 8 mm and D: 9 mm) were used as control. Each aged specimen was roughened by a an abrasive point, washed with water jet and air dried. Then, silane was applied followed by the application of Clearfil SE bond. After surface treatment, fresh composite of same resin: SR (Clearfil AP-X) and different resin: DR (Estelite Σ) was added and light cured in each group. After 24 hours of storage in water at 37°C, all the repaired and non repaired control specimens were cut into 1 mm sticks with a cross-sectional area of 0.7 mm 2 at the bonding interface and microtesile bond strength test was performed. The fracture modes and surface alterations were inspected by using a scanning electron microscope. Data were analyzed by two-way and one-way ANOVA. Results: Post-hoc comparison showed significantly reduced bond strength between 2 weeks saliva SR (43.97) and 12 weeks Milli-Q water DR (35.11) groups. When compared to control, Dunnett T3 test revealed significantly decreased bond strength in all groups of 12 weeks. Conclusion: The composite repair bond strengths were influenced by the different types of storage solutions and resin composition.
Micro-shear Bond Strength of Aged Resin Composite Repaired with Different Universal Adhesives
Meandros Medical and Dental Journal, 2019
Anah tarKe li me ler Üniversal adeziv, kompozit tamiri, mikromakaslama bağlanma dayanımı Keywords Universal adhesives, composite repair, microshear bond strength Amaç: Bu çalışma iki farklı üniversal adeziv sistemin yaşlandırılmış rezin kompozitlerin tamir bağlanma dayanımı üzerindeki etkileri incelemektedir. Gereç ve Yöntemler: Kırk dört adet kompozit disk hazırlanmıştır (5 mm x 3 mm). Kompozit disklerin yaşlandırılmasının ardından (ısıl-döngü 10.000), rastgele dört gruba ayrılmıştır. Örnekler rezin kompozit ile dört farklı tamir prosedürü izlenerek tamir edilmiştir: Porselen primer + Clearfil S3 Bond Plus, Single Bond Universal, Clearfil Universal Bond, Clearfil S3 Bond Plus, ardından mikro-makaslama bağlanma dayanımı testi uygulanmıştır. Veriler ANOVA ve Tukey's HSD kullanılarak analiz edilmişlerdir (p<0,05). Bulgular: İlave silan uygulanması tamir bağlanma dayanımını önemli ölçüde etkilemiştir (p<0,05). Üniversal adezivler ile tamir edilen gruplar arasında istatistiksel olarak anlamı bir fark yoktur. Tek-basamaklı kendinden asitli adeziv diğer gruplardan daha düşük tamir dayanımı göstermiştir. Sonuç: Üniversal adezivlerin, ilave silan uygulaması olmaksızın tek başına kompozit rezinlerin tamirinde kullanılması önerilmez. Öz Objective: This study evaluated the effect of two different universal adhesives on the repair bond strength of aged resin composite. Materials and Methods: Forty-four composite resin disks were prepared (5 mm x 3 mm). The composite disks randomly assigned into four groups after aging. Specimens were repaired with resin composite using four different repair procedure; Porcelain primer + Clearfil S3 Bond Plus, Single Bond Universal, Clearfil Universal Bond, Clearfil S3 Bond Plus, then they were subjected to micro-shear bond strength testing. Data were analyzed using ANOVA and Tukey's HSD (p<0.05). Results: Additional silane treatment significantly affected the repair bond strengths (p<0.05). No statistical difference was found in repaired groups with universal adhesives. One-step self-etch adhesive showed lower bond repair strength values in aged composite repair (p<0.05). Conclusion: Repair of composite restorations with universal adhesives cannot suggest without additional silane application.
Effect of Surface Treatments and Bonding Agents on the Bond Strength of Repaired Composites
Journal of Esthetic and Restorative Dentistry, 2007
ABSTRACTStatement of the Problem: An adequate repair procedure depends on high bond strength between the existing composite and the new composite.Purpose: To evaluate the effect of surface treatments and bonding procedures on the bond strength of repairs performed 24 hours after composite polymerization.Materials and Methods: Composite specimens were stored in distilled water at 37°C for 24 hours. Specimens were allocated into 12 groups (N=10) according to the combination of surface treatment (none, air abrasion, diamond bur) and bonding procedure (none, Single Bond after H3PO4 cleansing, Clearfil SE Bond after H3PO4 cleansing, Clearfil SE Bond without H3PO4 cleansing). The ultimate tensile strength (UTS) of the composite was tested in nonrepaired specimens. Twenty-four hours after repair, specimens were sectioned into three slabs and trimmed to an hourglass shape (1 mm2 area). Slabs were tested under tension and mean bond strengths analyzed with two-way analysis of variance/Tukey and Dunnett tests (α=5%).Results: Two groups resulted in repair bond strengths similar to composite UTS: air abrasion combined with Clearfil SE Bond after H3PO4 cleansing, and air abrasion combined with Clearfil SE Bond without H3PO4 cleansing. Combinations of surface treatments and bonding procedures were not statistically different.Conclusions: When repair procedure was performed 24 hours after composite polymerization, different combinations of surface treatments and bonding procedures affected repair bond strength similarly. There was no statistical difference between the repair bond strength of groups air-abraded and bonded with the self-etching system and composite UTS.Statement of the Problem: An adequate repair procedure depends on high bond strength between the existing composite and the new composite.Purpose: To evaluate the effect of surface treatments and bonding procedures on the bond strength of repairs performed 24 hours after composite polymerization.Materials and Methods: Composite specimens were stored in distilled water at 37°C for 24 hours. Specimens were allocated into 12 groups (N=10) according to the combination of surface treatment (none, air abrasion, diamond bur) and bonding procedure (none, Single Bond after H3PO4 cleansing, Clearfil SE Bond after H3PO4 cleansing, Clearfil SE Bond without H3PO4 cleansing). The ultimate tensile strength (UTS) of the composite was tested in nonrepaired specimens. Twenty-four hours after repair, specimens were sectioned into three slabs and trimmed to an hourglass shape (1 mm2 area). Slabs were tested under tension and mean bond strengths analyzed with two-way analysis of variance/Tukey and Dunnett tests (α=5%).Results: Two groups resulted in repair bond strengths similar to composite UTS: air abrasion combined with Clearfil SE Bond after H3PO4 cleansing, and air abrasion combined with Clearfil SE Bond without H3PO4 cleansing. Combinations of surface treatments and bonding procedures were not statistically different.Conclusions: When repair procedure was performed 24 hours after composite polymerization, different combinations of surface treatments and bonding procedures affected repair bond strength similarly. There was no statistical difference between the repair bond strength of groups air-abraded and bonded with the self-etching system and composite UTS.CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCEOnly air abrasion associated with a self-etching system provided repair bond strength comparable to composite UTS.Only air abrasion associated with a self-etching system provided repair bond strength comparable to composite UTS.
The repair potential of resin composite materials
Dental Materials, 2011
Objectives. To measure the 'repair' strength of various combinations of composite using four manufacturers' adhesive systems, to compare the bond strengths with the cohesive strength of the original, unrepaired products and to assess whether the chemical nature of the resin matrix influenced the repair strength. Methods. Specimens were prepared of three composite materials Durafill, Heraeus Kulzer; P90 (Silorane) 3M ESPE; Z250 (3M ESPE) and aged in water at 60 • C for 1 month. One surface of each specimen was faced with 80-grit silicone carbide paper, one of four adhesives placed (Ecusit, DMG; Clearfil Repair, Kuraray; P90 System Adhesive; Single Bond 2, 3 M ESPE) and 'repair' composite added of the same type as above, such that all combinations of original and repair composite and adhesive were used. 'Stick' samples, approximately 6 mm × 0.8 mm × 4 mm were prepared from each repair specimen, a neck created at the junction of original and repair composites and the hour-glass sample tested in tension at 1 mm/min. The microtensile bond strength of the repair was calculated and the mode of failure (adhesive; cohesive in the original composite; cohesive in the repair composite) recorded. Results. There was no significant difference between the cohesive strengths of Filtek P90 and Filtek Z250 (both ≈106 MPa); both were significantly stronger than Durafill (67.0 MPa). For bonding to Durafill the bond strengths ranged from 17.6 MPa to 50.9 MPa; for bonding to P90, the bond strengths ranged from 5.0 MPa to 54.2 MPa; for bonding to Z250, the bond strengths ranged from 17.2 MPa to 75.4 MPa. Clearfil Repair appeared to provide the most consistently high bond strengths, followed by the P90 System Adhesive, Single Bond 2 and Ecusit. Overall, the majority of failures (74%) was adhesive. Significance. It appears that bonding of new dimethacrylate-based composite to old dimethacrylate-based composite can be a viable clinical procedure. However, if the original composite is silorane-based (e.g., P90), then using the silane-based adhesive may be the best repair option, and similarly if it is planned to effect a repair with a silorane-based composite, using a silane-based adhesive may give the best outcome. The null hypotheses are thus rejected.