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
. 2023 Jul 17;24(14):11568.
doi: 10.3390/ijms241411568.

Comparative Evaluation of the Repair Bond Strength of Dental Resin Composite after Sodium Bicarbonate or Aluminum Oxide Air-Abrasion

Kinga Dorottya Németh  1 , Roland Told  2 , Péter Szabó  3 , Péter Maróti  2 , Réka Szénai  1 , Zsolt Balázs Pintér  4 , Bálint Viktor Lovász  5 , József Szalma  6 , Edina Lempel  1
Affiliations

Comparative Evaluation of the Repair Bond Strength of Dental Resin Composite after Sodium Bicarbonate or Aluminum Oxide Air-Abrasion

Kinga Dorottya Németh et al. Int J Mol Sci. .

Abstract

The dental prophylactic cleaning of a damaged resin-based composite (RBC) restoration with sodium bicarbonate can change the surface characteristics and influence the repair bond strength. The purpose of this study was to compare the effect of sodium bicarbonate (SB) and aluminum oxide (AO) surface treatments on the microtensile bond strength (µTBS) of repaired, aged RBC. Bar specimens were prepared from microhybrid RBC and aged in deionized water for 8 weeks. Different surface treatments (AO air-abrasion; SB air-polishing), as well as cleaning (phosphoric acid, PA; ethylene-diamine-tetraacetic-acid, EDTA) and adhesive applications (single bottle etch-and-rinse, ER; universal adhesive, UA), were used prior to the application of the repair RBC. Not aged and aged but not surface treated RBCs were used as positive and negative controls, respectively. The repaired blocks were cut into sticks using a precision grinding machine. The specimens were tested for tensile fracture and the µTBS values were calculated. Surface characteristics were assessed using scanning electron microscopy. AO-PA-UA (62.6 MPa) showed a 20% increase in µTBS compared to the NC (50.2 MPa), which proved to be the most significant. This was followed by SB-EDTA-UA (58.9 MPa) with an increase of 15%. In addition to AO-PA-UA, SB-EDTA-UA could also be a viable alternative in the RBC repair protocol.

Keywords: aluminum oxide; dental adhesive; repair bond strength; resin composite; sodium bicarbonate.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
Comparison of microtensile bond strength among the aluminum oxide air-abraded (A) and the sodium bicarbonate air-polished (B) groups. Different capital letters denote statistically significant differences among the compared aluminum oxide air-abraded and sodium bicarbonate air-polished groups, analyzed by one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) and Tukey’s post hoc test.
Figure 2
Figure 2
Comparison of microtensile bond strength among those aluminum oxide and sodium bicarbonate air-abraded groups, which achieved higher values than the negative control. Different capital letters denote statistically significant differences among groups analyzed with one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) and Tukey’s post hoc test.
Figure 3
Figure 3
Failure modes of the investigated groups. Cohesive failure type represents failure within the substrate or the repair RBC, adhesive failure occurs between substrate and repair RBC, and both cohesive and adhesive failures are observable in mixed failure mode.
Figure 4
Figure 4
Representative scanning electron microscopy images of air-polished (65 µm sodium bicarbonate, NaHCO3) and air-abraded (53 µm aluminum oxide, Al2O3) resin-based composite (RBC) samples (Filtek Z250, 3M ESPE, St. Paul, MN, USA). The magnification of images (A,B) is 350×, where half of the RBC specimen surface was covered with a metal strip to avoid surface treatment and the uncovered was air-polished/air-abraded. Note the depth discrepancy (indicated with double broken white line) between Al2O3 treated and untreated parts of the sample (B), which proves the significant removal of the surface layer. Images (C,D) show the 1000× magnification of NaHCO3 air-polished and Al2O3 air-abraded RBCs. Images (E,F) represent the energy-dispersive X-ray elemental analysis of remnant particles (highlighted by red circles on enlarged image details in red boxes) of NaHCO3 and Al2O3, respectively.
Figure 5
Figure 5
Representative scanning electron microscopy images at 1000× (A) and 5000× (D) magnification of aluminum oxide air-abraded resin composite (Filtek Z250, 3M ESPE, St. Paul, MN, USA) surface; images at 1000× (B) and 5000× (E) magnification of aluminum oxide air abraded surface cleaned with 35% phosphoric acid; images at 1000× (C) and 5000× (F) magnification of aluminum oxide air-abraded surface cleaned with ethylene diamine tetra-acetic acid.
Figure 6
Figure 6
Representative scanning electron microscopy images at 1000× (A) and 5000× (D) magnification of sodium bicarbonate air-abraded resin composite surface; images at 1000× (B) and 5000× (E) magnification of sodium bicarbonate treated surface cleaned with 35% phosphoric acid, white arrow shows a crystalline pollutant; images at 1000× (C) and 5000× (F) magnification of sodium-bicarbonate-treated surface cleaned with ethylene diamine tetra-acetic acid.
Figure 7
Figure 7
Custom-made laser cut transparent thermoplastic poly(methyl-methacrylate) (plexiglass) template used for sample preparation.
Figure 8
Figure 8
Flowchart of different surface treatment methods of the resin composite samples.
Figure 9
Figure 9
Schematic flowchart of the steps of sample preparation for microtensile bond strength measurements.
See this image and copyright information in PMC

References

    1. Da Rosa Rodolpho P.A., Rodolfo B., Collares K., Correa M.B., Demarco F.F., Opdam N.J.M., Cenci M.S., Moraes R.R. Clinical performance of posterior resin composite restorations after up to 33 years. Dent. Mater. 2022;38:680–688. doi: 10.1016/j.dental.2022.02.009. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Opdam N.J., van de Sande F.H., Bronkhorst E., Cenci M.S., Bottenberg P., Pallesen U., Gaengler P., Lindberg A., Huysmans M.C., van Dijken J.W. Longevity of posterior composite restorations: A systematic review and meta-analysis. J. Dent. Res. 2014;93:943–949. doi: 10.1177/0022034514544217. - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Lempel E., Lovász B.V., Bihari E., Krajczár K., Jeges S., Tóth Á., Szalma J. Long-term clinical evaluation of direct resin composite restorations in vital vs. endodontically treated posterior teeth—Retrospective study up to 13 years. Dent. Mater. 2019;35:1308–1318. doi: 10.1016/j.dental.2019.06.002. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Blum I.R., Jagger D.C., Wilson N.H.F. Defective dental restorations: To repair or not to repair? Part 1: Direct composite restorations. Dent. Update. 2011;38:78–80, 82–84. doi: 10.12968/denu.2011.38.2.78. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Hickel R., Peschke A., Tyas M., Mjör I., Bayne S., Peters M., Hiller K.A., Randall R., Vanherle G., Heintze S.D. FDI World Dental Federation—Clinical criteria for the evaluation of direct and indirect restorations. Update and clinical examples. J. Adhes. Dent. 2010;12:259–272. doi: 10.1007/s00784-010-0432-8. - DOI - PubMed

LinkOut - more resources