Effect of Surface Treatment Methods on Microtensile Bond Strength of Aged Resin Composite Repair
Objective: To evaluate the effect of surface treatment with mechanical and/or chemical procedures on the microtensile bond strength (MTBS) of a repaired, aged resin composite.
Methods: Forty-eight half-hourglass-shaped resin composite blocks (ClearfilTM AP-X ES-2 shade A1) with a surface area at the narrowest part of 1.5x8.0 mm. were prepared by means of metal split mold. All specimens were divided into six groups of eight pieces. The blocks in Group 1 were stored in distilled water at 37 °C for 24 hours. The others (Groups 2-6) were subjected to 15,000 cycles of thermocycling, then stored in distilled water at 37 °C for six months with weekly water replacement. The speciTM SE Bond; Group 3 (+CoSE), CoJetTM followed by ClearfilTM SE Bond; Group 4 (+CoSiB), CoJetTM followed by silane coupling agent which was a mixture of ClearfilTM porcelain bond activator and primer of ClearfilTM SE Bond in a 1:1 ratio for 60 seconds, then bonding; Group 5 (+HFSE), 9.5% hydrofluoric acid for 60 seconds, followed by ClearfilTM SE Bond; and Group 6 (+HFSiB), 9.5% hydrofluoric acid for 60 seconds, followed by silane coupling agent, then bonding. After surface treatments, each specimen was repaired into a hourglass-shaped by a split mold using ClearfilTM AP-X ES-2 shade A4, to simulate the repair of an old restoration. After 24 hours storage in 37°C distilled water, all specimens were sectioned to achieve a surface area at the narrowest part of 1.5x0.7 mm, 5 pieces/specimen. MTBS between the resin composites was determined using a universal testing machine (crosshead speed of 1 mm/min). All bond strength data were statistically analyzed using One-way ANOVA test followed by Dumens were treated with different procedures: Group 1 (-SE) and Group 2 (+SE) as negative and positive control groups, respectively, Clearfilnnett’s T3 multiple comparisons test, with significance set up at p < 0.05. Treated surfaces and interfaces were examined under a scanning electron microscope.
Results: The various surface treatments combined with the aging conditions exhibited significant effects on MTBS. The negative control group (-SE) showed the highest MTBS. On the other hand, the MTBS of all aged groups were decreased; however, two of the treatments (+CoSiB and +HFSE) showed significantly greater MTBS than did the other treatments. The +CoSE treatment exhibited the lowest MTBS.
Conclusions: Surface treatment with 9.5% hydrofluoric acid for 60 seconds, followed by ClearfilTM SE Bond and CoJetTM, followed by silane coupling agent and bonding, significantly improved the MTBS of a repaired, aged resin composite.
Gordan VV, Mjor IA, Blum IR, Wilson N. Teaching students the repair of resin-based composite restorations: a survey of North American dental schools. J Am Dent Assoc 2003; 134(3): 317-323.
da Rosa Rodolpho PA, Cenci MS, Donassollo TA, Loguercio AD, Demarco FF. A clinical evaluation of posterior composite restorations: 17-year findings. J Dent 2006; 34(7): 427-435.
Valente LL, Silva MF, Fonseca AS, Münchow EA, Isolan CP, Moraes RR. Effect of diamond bur grit size on composite repair. J Adhes Dent 2015; 17(3): 257-263.
Ferracane JL, Berge HX, Condon JR. In vitro aging of dental composites in water--effect of degree of conversion, filler volume, and filler/matrix coupling. J Biomed Mater Res 1998; 42(3): 465-472.
Brosh T, Pilo R, Bichacho N, Blutstein R. Effect of combinations of surface treatments and bonding agents on the bond strength of repaired composites. J Prosthet Dent 1997; 77(2): 122-126.
Matinlinna JP, Lassila LV, Ozcan M, Yli-Urpo A, Vallittu PK. An introduction to silanes and their clinical applications in dentistry. Int J Prosthodont 2004; 17(2): 155-164.
Nassoohi N, Kazemi H, Sadaghiani M, Mansouri M, Rakhshan V. Effects of three surface conditioning techniques on repair bond strength of nanohybrid and nanofilled composites. Dent Res J 2015; 12(6): 554-561.
Rathke A, Tymina Y, Haller B. Effect of different surface treatments on the composite-composite repair bond strength. Clin Oral Invest 2009; 13(3): 317-323.
Kula K, Webb EL, Kula TJ. Effect of 1- and 4-minute treatments of topical fluorides on a composite resin. Pediatr Dent 1996; 18(1): 24-28.
Loomans BAC, Cardoso MV, Opdam NJM, et al. Surface roughness of etched composite resin in light of composite repair. J Dent 2011; 39(7): 499-505.
Vankerckhoven H, Lambrechts P, van Beylen M, Davidson CL, Vanherle G. Unreacted methacrylate groups on the surfaces of composite resins. J Dent Res 1982; 61(6): 791-795.
Brendeke J, Ozcan M. Effect of physicochemical aging conditions on the composite-composite repair bond strength. J Adhes Dent 2007; 9(4): 399-406.
Ozcan M, Cura C, Brendeke J. Effect of aging conditions on the repair bond strength of a microhybrid and a nanohybrid resin composite. J Adhes Dent 2010; 12(6): 451-459.
Rinastiti M, Ozcan M, Siswomihardjo W, Busscher H. Effects of surface conditioning on repair bond strengths of non-aged and aged microhybrid, nanohybrid, and nanofilled composite resins. Clin Oral Invest 2011; 15(5): 625-633.
Onisor I, Bouillaguet S, Krejci I. Influence of Different Surface Treatments on Marginal Adaptation in Enamel and Dentin. J Adhes Dent 2007; 9(3): 297.
Junior SAR, Ferracane JL, Della Bona A. Influence of surface treatments on the bond strength of repaired resin composite restorative materials. Dent Mater 2009; 25(4): 442-451.
Buonocore MG. Principles of adhesive retention and adhesive restorative materials. J Am Dent Assoc 1963; 67(3): 382-391.
Lung CYK, Matinlinna JP. Aspects of silane coupling agents and surface conditioning in dentistry: An overview. Dent Mater 2012; 28(5): 467.
Cho B-H, Dickens SH. Effects of the acetone content of single solution dentin bonding agents on the adhesive layer thickness and the microtensile bond strength. Dent Mater 2004; 20(2): 107-115.
Ikemura K, Tay FR, Nishiyama N, Pashley DH, Endo T. Design of new phosphonic acid monomers for dental adhesives--synthesis of (meth) acryloxyalkyl 3-phosphonopropionates and evaluation of their adhesion-promoting functions. Dent Mater J 2006; 25(3): 566-575.
Szep S, Gerhardt T, Gockel H-W, Ruppel M, Metzeltin D, Heidemann D. In vitro dentinal surface reaction of 9.5% buffered hydrofluoric acid in repair of ceramic restorations: A scanning electron microscopic investigation. J Prosthet Dent 2000; 83(6): 668-674.
Saracoglu A, Özcan M, Kumbuloglu O, Turkun M. Adhesion of resin composite to hydrofluoric acid-exposed enamel and dentin in repair protocols. Oper Dent 2011; 36(5): 545-553.
Yoshida Y, Yoshihara K, Nagaoka N, et al. Self-assembled nano-layering at the adhesive interface. J Dent Res 2012; 91(4): 376-381.
Ilie N, Stawarczyk B. Efficiency of different repair kits on bonding to aged dental resin composite substrates. Int J Adhes Adhes 2015; 58: 7-12.
Chen L, Hammond BD, Alex G, Suh BI. Effect of silane contamination on dentin bond strength. J Prosthet Dent 2017; 117(3): 438-443.