Minimal intervention in dentistry: which is the best approach for silorane composite restoration repairs?

Abstract

Background This study aimed to evaluate surface treatments, adhesives and composites for repairing silorane based restorations. Material and Methods One hundred and twenty truncated cones (2 mm smaller diameter and 4 mm larger diameter) made of silorane composite were divided in 12 groups according with the surface treatment (diamond bur and oxide aluminum abrasion), the adhesive (Adper Scothbond Multipurpose (3M ESPE), Ecusit (Voco) and Filtek P90 Adhesive (3M ESPE)). Each group was subdivided in two according with the composite used for repair (methacrylate and silorane). The repair was made with a second truncated cone build over the first one and bond strength assssed by tensile strength. Data were submitted to ANOVA 3-way and Tukey’s test ( p <0.05). Results There was difference only for the adhesives and the composites, with conventional adhesives (Adper Scothbond Mutipurpose) and methacrylate-based composites (Filtek Z350) presenting superior tensile strength compared to the silorane ones (P90 Adhesive system and composite). Conclusions Therefore, it must be concluded that silorane composite can be repaired with methacrylate base composites and adhesives. Key words: Silorane composites, composites, bond strength, minimal intervention.

Bonding Performance for Repairs Using Bulk Fill and Conventional Methacrylate Composites

“…Finally, the tensile stress test adopted in this study used the same parameter adopted by Pucci et al, Feitosa et al, and Zanatta et al [ 22 , 23 , 25 ] and presented as an interesting option for tensile test with high predominance of adhesive failures, as shown by Figure 3 , and without specimen loss or problems associated with conventional microtensile test. As an in vitro study, one of the main limitations refers to the aging protocol.…”

“…Figure 2 shows the chart of group division. For this, another truncated cone was built over the treated ones, with help of a second Teflon device as previously described by Pucci et al [ 22 ], Feitosa et al [ 25 ], and Zanatta et al [ 23 ]. The repair was made either with conventional composite (FTK) or the bulk fill (OBF) one ( Figure 2 ).…”

“…Specimen Preparation. Sixty-six artificially aged specimens were made in the shape of a truncated cone with help of a two-piece Teflon device, as previously described [22,23] using a bulk fill resin composite (OBFa-Filtek One, shade A2-3M ESPE, St. Paul, USA), and other sixty-six were made with a conventional methacrylate resin composite (FTKa-Z250, shade A2-3M ESPE, St. Paul, USA). e specimens presented the larger base measuring 4 mm in diameter and the smaller one with 2 mm and 4 mm in height (Figure 1).…”

Bulk-Fill Resins versus Conventional Resins: An Umbrella Review

“…The modification of the composite resin insertion was one of the ways found to reduce the effects of polymerisation shrinkage. However, over time, changes in the composition of composite resins were used with the same objective, either in changing the percentage of filler versus resin or in the introduction of other resin monomers, namely ormocer and silorane [ 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 ].…”