Same, same, but different? A systematic review of protocols for restoration repair

Kanzow, Philipp; Wiegand, Annette; Schwendicke, Falk; Göstemeyer, Gerd

doi:10.1016/j.jdent.2019.05.021

Cited by 43 publications

(43 citation statements)

References 36 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…The influence of different surface treatment protocols and bonding agents on the repair microtensile bond strength of sixmonth' aged composite: An in vitro study INTRODUCTION I n conservative dentistry, there is a growing trend towards repairing defective composite restorations instead of complete replacement. Composite repair not only increase the longevity of restorations but also save sound tooth structure and avoid trauma from restorative procedures [1][2][3][4][5].…”

Section: O R I G I N a L A R T I C L Ementioning

confidence: 99%

“…These surface treatments provide surface irregularities which promote micro-mechanical interlocking between the substrate surface and the repair resin. [5,[7][8][9][10] In most clinical studies, partial removal of the old composite was done using coarse diamond bur [1,[11][12][13], however, using either medium or fine grit diamond bur can produce more reliable repair bond strength than using coarse diamond bur. [13,14] on the other hand, Erbium laser has been recently suggested for surface roughness of the old composite by ablation mechanism, which can be used in the process of repair [15][16][17].…”

Section: O R I G I N a L A R T I C L Ementioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

The influence of different surface treatment protocols and bonding agents on the repair microtensile bond strength of six-month’ aged composite: An in vitro study

Saleh¹,

Safwat²

2020

BDS

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objective: to compare the effect of three surface treatment protocols and two intermediate agents on repairing aged composite, regarding microtensile bond strength (µTBS) and mode of fracture, at two time intervals. Material and methods: Six-month aged microhybrid composite blocks, were randomly distributed into three groups, subjected to; Fine, Super Fine grit diamond burs or Erbium- Yag Laser surface treatment. Each block had both One Coat bond SL (Bond) and Brilliant Flow flowable composite (Flow) intermediate agents, alongside. Blocks were incrementally repaired using nanohybrid composite, cut into beams, then randomly subjected either immediately (IM) to µTBS test or after thermocycling (TC) for 5000 cycle. Mode of failure was determined using stereomicroscope. Data were analyzed through three-way ANOVA followed by pairwise comparison with Bonferroni correction. Kruskal Wallis test compared groups for failure mode analysis (?=0.05)Results: Super Fine grit showed the highest mean µTBS compared to control for both intermediate agents, IM and after TC at P<0.05. No difference between Fine grit and Laser application for all groups (P>0.05). IM, Bond showed the highest µTBS compared to TC, Flow for all tested groups. Beams roughened with Fine and Super Fine burs showed significantly lower adhesive failures than those roughened with Laser. Flow suffers significantly higher adhesive failure than those with Bond. For TC tested groups; beams with Super Fine bur and Bond showed significantly lower adhesive failure at P=0.029.Conclusions: Super Fine grit and Bond provide the highest µTBS and the least adhesive failure; moreover TC resulted in significant decrease in µTBS.

show abstract

Section: O R I G I N a L A R T I C L Ementioning

confidence: 99%

Section: O R I G I N a L A R T I C L Ementioning

confidence: 99%

The influence of different surface treatment protocols and bonding agents on the repair microtensile bond strength of six-month’ aged composite: An in vitro study

Saleh¹,

Safwat²

2020

BDS

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…B. am Restaurationsrand, bieten Adhäsivsysteme mit sauren Phosphatmonomeren (z. B. MDP) eine zusätzliche Adhäsion an Gold-und Keramikoberflächen [35]. Ist ein ausreichend langes Trockenhalten nicht gewährleistet, können konventionelle oder resinmodifizierte Glasionomerzemente trotz mechanischer Nachteile vorteilhaft sein [36].…”

Section: Merkeunclassified

Wurzelkaries – kennen, erkennen, erfolgreich therapieren

Scholz¹,

Buchalla²

2019

ZWR

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Previous studies showed that the bond will be so weak if the adhesive is not applied after surface preparation (16,25). Despite many studies, there is still no agreement on the best composite repair protocol (2,11,26,27). Therefore, a combination of mechanical/chemical preparation and bonding agents has been used in this regard (28,29).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Evaluation of Surface Preparations Combined With Different Generations of Bonding on the Bond Strength of Resin Composite Repair: An Original Article

Valian¹,

Nejatifard²,

Salehi³

et al. 2020

Avicenna J Dent Res

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background: This study evaluated the effect of different mechanical surface preparation methods, as well as different adhesives including universal bonding agents, on the shear bond strength of composite repairs. Methods: This study was experimentally performed on 64 Z250 composite discs (3M, ESPE) with 6 mm diameter and 2 mm height. A total of 60 samples were randomly divided into 6 groups as follows: Group A) diamond milling + Adper Single Bond 2, group B) diamond milling + Single Bond Universal, group C) diamond milling + All Bond Universal, group D) sandblast + Adper Single Bond 2, group E) sandblast + Single Bond Universal, group F) sandblast + All Bond Universal. Then, the new composite was placed on the bonding layer, cured, and underwent aging again. The samples were assessed for shear bond strength by universal testing machine and their failure mode was investigated under the light microscope (20x and 100x). Finally, 4 remaining samples, which were surface-prepared by diamond milling and sandblasting, were evaluated for qualitative analysis of surface roughness using scanning electron microscopy (SEM) and atomic force microscopy (AFM). Data were analyzed by oneway ANOVA and Fisher's exact tests. Results: There was no statistically significant difference in shear bond strength and failure mode among the groups (P > 0.05). However, diamond milling + Single Bond Universal group showed the highest and Adper Single Bond 2 had the lowest bond strength. Conclusions: There was no significant difference in bond strength using different methods. Therefore, diamond milling + Single Bond Universal was suggested as the best and most available method compared to sandblasting.

show abstract

Same, same, but different? A systematic review of protocols for restoration repair

Cited by 43 publications

References 36 publications

The influence of different surface treatment protocols and bonding agents on the repair microtensile bond strength of six-month’ aged composite: An in vitro study

The influence of different surface treatment protocols and bonding agents on the repair microtensile bond strength of six-month’ aged composite: An in vitro study

Wurzelkaries – kennen, erkennen, erfolgreich therapieren

Evaluation of Surface Preparations Combined With Different Generations of Bonding on the Bond Strength of Resin Composite Repair: An Original Article

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About