Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2017 Dec 12;4(1):10-19.
doi: 10.1080/23337931.2017.1412262. eCollection 2018.

Repair bond strength of nanohybrid composite resins with a universal adhesive

Pinar Altinci  1   2 , Murat Mutluay  2   3 , Arzu Tezvergil-Mutluay  2   3
Affiliations

Repair bond strength of nanohybrid composite resins with a universal adhesive

Pinar Altinci et al. Acta Biomater Odontol Scand. .

Abstract

Objective: To investigate the repair bond strength of fresh and aged nanohybrid and hybrid composite resins using a universal adhesive (UA). Materials and methods: Fresh and aged substrates were prepared using two nanohybrid (Venus Pearl, Heraus Kulzer; Filtek Supreme XTE, 3 M ESPE) and one hybrid (Z100, 3 M ESPE) composite resin, and randomly assigned to different surface treatments: (1) no treatment (control), (2) surface roughening with 320-grit (SR), (3) SR + UA (iBOND, Heraus Kulzer), (4) SR + Silane (Signum, Ceramic Bond I, Heraeus Kulzer) + UA, (5) SR + Sandblasting (CoJet, 3 M ESPE) + Silane + UA. After surface treatment, fresh composite resin was added to the substrates at 2 mm layer increments to a height of 5 mm, and light cured. Restored specimens were water-stored for 24 h and sectioned to obtain 1.0 × 1.0 mm beams (n = 12), and were either water-stored for 24 h at 37 °C, or water-stored for 24 h, and then thermocycled for 6000 cycles before microtensile bond strength (µTBS) testing. Data were analyzed with ANOVA and Tukey's HSD tests (p = .05). Results: Combined treatment of SR, sandblasting, silane and UA provided repair bond strength values comparable to the cohesive strength of each tested resin material (p < .05). Thermocycling significantly reduced the cohesive strength of the composite resins upto 65% (p < .05). Repair bond strengths of UA-treated groups were more stable under thermocycling. Conclusions: Universal adhesive application is a reliable method for composite repair. Sandblasting and silane application slightly increases the repair strength for all substrate types.

Keywords: Aged substrate; composite repair; nanohybrid composite; universal adhesive.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

Figures

Figure 1.
Figure 1.
Schematic diagram of study protocol.
Figure 2.
Figure 2.
Repair bond strengths and fracture analysis of fresh and aged VP groups before and after thermocycling. The same uppercase letter shows that there is no significant difference between the same substrate groups subjected to the different surface treatments. The same lowercase letter indicates no significant difference among substrate groups subjected to the same treatment technique (p >.05).
Figure 3.
Figure 3.
Repair bond strengths and fracture analysis of fresh and aged Z100 groups before and after thermocycling. The same uppercase letter shows that there is no significant difference between the same substrate groups subjected to the different surface treatments. The same lowercase letter indicates no significant difference among substrate groups subjected to the same treatment technique (p >.05).
Figure 4.
Figure 4.
Repair bond strengths and fracture analysis of fresh and aged FS groups before and after thermocycling. The same uppercase letter shows that there is no significant difference between the same substrate groups subjected to the different surface treatments. The same lowercase letter indicates no significant difference among substrate groups subjected to the same treatment technique (p >.05).
Figure 5.
Figure 5.
Representative SEM images from the fracture analysis of VP groups after µTBS testing; (a) cohesive failure in the fresh control group, (b) adhesive interface failure in the abrasive paper aged subgroup, (c) mixed failure in the SR + UA aged subgroup, (d) mixed failure in the SR + Silane + UA aged subgroup, (e) mixed failure in the SR + Sandblasting + Silane + UA aged subgroup. Resin matrix and filler distributions on the surface of (f) VP, (g) Z100, (h) FS specimens.
See this image and copyright information in PMC

References

    1. Staxrud F, Tveit AB, Rukke HV, et al. . Repair of defective composite restorations. A questionnaire study among dentists in the Public Dental Service in Norway. J Dent. 2016;52:50–54. - PubMed
    1. Gordan VV, Garvan CW, Richman JS, DPBRN Collaborative Group, et al. . How dentists diagnose and treat defective restorations: evidence from the dental practice-based research network. Oper Dent. 2009;34:664–673. - PMC - PubMed
    1. Loomans BA, Cardoso MV, Roeters FJ, et al. . Is there one optimal repair technique for all composites? Dent Mater. 2011;27:701–709. - PubMed
    1. Baur V, Ilie N.. Repair of dental resin-based composites. Clin Oral Investig. 2013;17:601–608. - PubMed
    1. Eliasson ST, Tibballs J, Dahl JE.. Effect of different surface treatments and adhesives on repair bond strength of resin composites after one and 12 months of storage using an improved microtensile test method. Oper Dent. 2014;39: E206–E216. - PubMed

LinkOut - more resources