Evaluation of new methods for composite repair

Swift, Edward J.; LeValley, Bradley D.; Boyer, Daniel

doi:10.1016/0109-5641(92)90020-d

Cited by 127 publications

(126 citation statements)

References 14 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

108

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…13,[26][27][28] In this study, it was interesting to see quite different results from the two acid etching subgroups. When repaired with Filtek Z250 (group 2M), the 35% phosphoric acid was able to produce microtensile bond strength values comparable to the cohesive strength of the silorane composite.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Effect of Surface Treatments on Microtensile Bond Strength of Repaired Aged Silorane Resin Composite

Palasuk

Platt

Cho

et al. 2013

Operative Dentistry

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

SUMMARY Objective: This laboratory study compared the repaired microtensile bond strengths of aged silorane resin composite using different surface treatments and either silorane or methacrylate resin composite. Methods: One hundred eight silorane resin composite blocks (Filtek LS) were fabricated and aged by thermocycling between 8°C and 48°C (5000 cycles). A control (solid resin composite) and four surface treatment groups (no treatment, acid treatment, aluminum oxide sandblasting, and diamond bur abrasion) were tested (N=12 blocks, 108 beams/group). Each treatment group was randomly divided in half and repaired with either silorane resin composite (LS adhesive) or methacrylate resin composite (Filtek Z250/Single Bond Plus). After 24 hours in 37°C distilled water, microtensile bond strength testing was performed using a non-trimming technique. Surface topography after surface treatment was analyzed using scanning electron microscopy (SEM). Failure mode was examined using optical microscopy (50×). Results: Weibull-distribution survival analysis revealed that aluminum oxide sandblasting followed by silorane or methacrylate resin composite and acid treatment with methacrylate resin composite provided insignificant differences from the control (p>0.05). All other groups were significantly lower than the control. Failure was primarily adhesive in all groups. Conclusion: Aluminum oxide sandblasting produced microtensile bond strength not different from the cohesive strength of silorane resin composite. After aluminum oxide sandblasting, aged silorane resin composite can be repaired with either silorane resin composite with LS system adhesive or methacrylate resin composite with methacrylate dental adhesive.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Effect of Surface Treatments on Microtensile Bond Strength of Repaired Aged Silorane Resin Composite

Palasuk

Platt

Cho

et al. 2013

Operative Dentistry

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Several surface conditioning methods have been recommended to improve the repair bond strength, such as surface roughening with diamond burs, etching with hydrofluoric or phosphoric acid etching, or airborne abrasion with aluminium oxide particles or aluminium oxide particles coated with silica [11,[13][14][15][16][17][18][19][20][21]. Roughening methods provide surface irregularities, promoting micro-mechanical interlocking between the substrate surface and the repair resin, but these procedures are further associated with the application of wetting agents such as silane coupling agents and adhesive resins [17,22].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Despite the presence of unreacted methacrylate groups after the polymerization, the amount of unsaturated double bonds diminishes with ageing and reduces the resin adhesion potential [10][11][12][13]. Different periods of water storage and thermocycling are some of the methods used to simulate the ageing process of dental materials in in vitro studies [8,9,13].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Repair bond strength of microhybrid, nanohybrid and nanofilled resin composites: effect of substrate resin type, surface conditioning and ageing

et al. 2012

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

OBJECTIVES: This study evaluated the microtensile bond strength (MTBS) of non-aged and aged resin-based composites (RBC) (nanohybrid and nanofilled) after two surface conditioning methods, repaired using the composite of the same kind or a microhybrid composite. MATERIALS AND METH-ODS: Nanohybrid (Tetric EvoCeram-TE) and nanofilled (Filtek Supreme-FS) RBC blocks (5 × 5 × 6 mm) (N = 128) were fabricated and randomly divided into two groups: (a) no ageing (control group) and (b) ageing (5.000 thermocycling, 5-55°C). RBC surfaces were polished by up to 1,200-grit silicone carbide papers and conditioned with either (a) air abrasion with 30-m SiO(2) particles (CoJet Sand) for 4 s + silane coupling agent (ESPE-Sil) + adhesive resin (VisioBond) (n = 16) or (b) adhesive application only (Multilink A+B for TE; Adper ScotchBond 1XT for FS) (n = 16). In half of the groups, repair resin of the same kind with the RBC and, in the other half, a different kind of composite (microhybrid, Quadrant Anterior Shine-AS) with its corresponding adhesive (Quadrant UniBond) was used. The specimens were submitted to MTBS test (0.5 mm/min). Data were analysed using three-way ANOVA and Tukey's tests. Degree of conversion (DC) of non-aged and aged resin composites (TE, FS) (n = 3 per group) was measured by micro-Raman analyses. RESULTS: RBC type (p = 0.001) and ageing affected the MTBS results significantly (p = 0.001). Surface conditioning type did not show significant difference (p = 0.726), but less number of pre-test failures was experienced with the CoJet system compared to adhesive resin application only. Repair strength on aged TE showed significantly less (p < 0.05) MTBS than for FS. FS repaired with the same kind of RBC and adhesive resin presented the highest cohesive failures (43 %). DC was higher for TE (71 %) than for FS (58 %) before ageing. CONCLUSION: On the aged RBCs, less favourable repair strength could be expected especially for nanohybrid composite. For repair actions, RBC surface conditioning could be accomplished with either adhesive resin application only or with CoJet system, providing that the latter resulted in less pre-test failures. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: Clinicians could condition the resin surface prior to repair or relayering with either CoJet system or adhesive resin application only, depending on the availability of the system. Abstract Objectives This study evaluated the microtensile bond strength (MTBS) of non-aged and aged resin-based composites (RBC) (nanohybrid and nanofilled) after two surface conditioning methods, repaired using the composite of the same kind or a microhybrid composite. Materials and methods Nanohybrid (Tetric EvoCeram-TE) and nanofilled (Filtek Supreme-FS) RBC blocks (5× 5×6 mm) (N0128) were fabricated and randomly divided into two groups: (a) no ageing (control group) and (b) ageing (5.000 thermocycling, 5-55°C). RBC surfaces were polished by up to 1,200-grit silicone carbide papers and conditioned with either (a) air abrasion with 30-μm SiO 2 particles (CoJet Sand) for 4 s ...

show abstract

“…The target of silane coupling agent for repairing restoration is specifically focused towards the inorganic compositions such as filler of the resin composite system. On the other hand, it is also reported that another minimal approach to repair of resin composite restoration without silane coupling pretreatment has been suggested 13,14) . From the results of the X-ray fluorescence analysis, the four resin composites showed a variety of elemental filler composition.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

A novel composite-to-composite adhesive bond mechanism

et al. 2011

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The purpose of this study was to determine if adhesion between various resin composites can occur by a chelation reaction of elemental ions. The surface composition of four commercially available resin composites (Beautifil II, Clearfil AP-X, Estelite Σ Quick and Solare) were measured by X-ray fluorescence analysis. Composite-to-composite adhesion with conventional silane coupling treatment was compared to self-etching primer treatment and evaluated by conventional shear bond strength testing. Our results detected Strontium and Barium (alkaline metallic earth ions) on the surface of Beautifil II and Clearfil AP-X resins. The shear bond strength values of self-etching primer treatments of Beautifil II and Clearfil AP-X was significantly higher than Estelite Σ Quick and Solare. Our data suggest that self-etching primer treatment is effective for adhesion of resin composites, depending on their filler composition, due to the chelation adhesion reaction between the acidic monomer and incorporated alkaline metal ions.

show abstract

Evaluation of new methods for composite repair

Cited by 127 publications

References 14 publications

Effect of Surface Treatments on Microtensile Bond Strength of Repaired Aged Silorane Resin Composite

Effect of Surface Treatments on Microtensile Bond Strength of Repaired Aged Silorane Resin Composite

Repair bond strength of microhybrid, nanohybrid and nanofilled resin composites: effect of substrate resin type, surface conditioning and ageing

A novel composite-to-composite adhesive bond mechanism

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About