The reparability of contemporary composite resins

Spyrou, Maria; Koliniotou-Koumpia, Eugenia; Kouros, Pantelis; Koulaouzidou, Elisabeth A.; Dionysopoulos, P

doi:10.4103/1305-7456.137647

Cited by 21 publications

(17 citation statements)

References 25 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Different commercial brands have different compositions, and the type of resin seems to be the main factor influencing the bond strength of the repair 3. However, it is noted that the practice of associating composite resins of different compositions is common during the restoration procedure 4.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Shear bond strength of different surface treatments in bulk fill, microhybrid, and nanoparticle repair resins

Tavarez¹,

Júnior²,

Guará³

et al. 2017

CCIDE

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

ObjectivesThe purpose of this study was to evaluate the influence of surface treatment and different types of composite resin on the microshear bond strength of repairs.Materials and methodsSeventy-two specimens (n=72) were prepared using a nanoparticle resin and stored in artificial saliva at 37 ± 1°C for 24 h. After this period, the specimens (n=24) were restored with microhybrid resin P60 (3M ESPE), nanoparticle resin Filtek Z350 (3M ESPE), and Bulk Fill Surefil SDR Flow (Dentsply) composite resins. Previously, the surfaces of the samples were treated, forming the following subgroups (n=12): (A) conditioned with 37% phosphoric acid for 30 s, and (B) abrasioned with a diamond tip for 3 s and conditioned with 37% phosphoric acid. In all groups, before insertion of the composite resin, the adhesive system Adper Single Bond 2 was actively applied and photopolymerized for 20 s.ResultsThe microshear test was executed to assess bond strength. Kruskal–Wallis (p<0.05) and Mann–Whitney statistical tests showed significant statistical difference considering that the bulk-fill resin turned out to have a lower bond strength than the conventional nanoparticle and microhybrid composites. With regard to the technique, the roughening with diamond bur followed by the application of phosphoric acid exhibited values higher than the exclusive use of acid.ConclusionThe microshear bond strength of the composite resin repairs varies in accordance with the type of composite resin utilized, and roughening the surface increased the bond strength of these materials.

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Shear bond strength of different surface treatments in bulk fill, microhybrid, and nanoparticle repair resins

Tavarez¹,

Júnior²,

Guará³

et al. 2017

CCIDE

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…27 Rodrigues et al 27 observed that the differences in the microstructure of resin composite influence average bond strength values and a nanoparticle composite resin displays an inferior bond strength compared with microhybrid composite resin. 28 Spyrou et al 28 observed differences in repair strength of composites based on different resin compositions.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Comparative Evaluation of Different Surface Treatments on the Repair Shear Bond Strength of Three Nanohybrid Composites: An in vitro Study

Sarthaj¹,

Alexander²,

Priya³

et al. 2017

Conservative Dentistry and Endodontic Journal

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Aim: To evaluate the effects of different surface treatments on the repair bond strength of three different nanohybrid composites, namely conventional nanohybrid, bulk fill, and ceramicincorporated composites. Materials and methods:A split mold of height 5 × 5 mm in diameter was taken; 60 composite blocks were prepared based on three composites used. Group I: Kerr nanohybrid, group II: Tetric N-Ceram Bulk Fill, and group III: NanoCeram. Composite material was restored with incremental layering technique of 2 mm thickness. Aging of the composite blocks was achieved by storing them in distilled water for 1 week and then thermocycling. The samples were surface treated as subgroup A: sandblasting with silica particles, subgroup B: coarse grit diamond bur, subgroup C: etching with 10% hydrofluoric acid, and subgroup D: control group. Surface roughness of each surface-treated sample was evaluated using three-dimensional (3D) profilometer. A silane coupling agent and an adhesive agent were applied. Composite blocks were restored with the respective composite resins using a repair mold. A shearing force test was performed using universal testing machine. A load was applied to the interface at a crosshead speed of 0.5 mm/minute until fracture. Analyses were performed using analysis of variance (ANOVA) and post hoc Tukey test.Results: Highest shear bond strength was observed in composites surface treated with sandblasting followed by bur and hydrofluoric acid. The lowest shear bond strength was observed in the control group.Conclusion: Sandblasting surface treatment of Kerr composite manifested the highest bond strength, followed by Tetric N-Ceram and NanoCeram groups. Bur treatment of Tetric N-Ceram showed the higher bond strength values compared with the other groups. HF3 surface treatment of NanoCeram composite presented inferior bond strength values. Repair bond strength of aged nanohybrid resins could be improved with sandblasting, silane, and adhesive resin application compared with other surface treatments.

show abstract

“…When repairing the existing composite restoration, it is first necessary to prepare its surface mechanically to remove the outer layer of the aged composite that is most affected by saliva or other media, and to create an appropriate surface morphology for micromechanical bonding [23,45]. The composite surface is most commonly treated by grinding or air abrasion [7][8][9][10][11][12][13][14][15][16][17][19][20][21][22], or by the use of the Co-jet technique [9][10][11]18,20,[46][47][48][49] followed by the application of low-viscosity intermediate agents, usually enamel-dentin adhesive systems. In some papers, the silanization of the filler particles on the surface of the repaired composite is used [10,11,15,18,[20][21][22]29,48,49].…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Surface treatment therefore plays a key role in the repair of composite restorations. The surface of the restoration is most often mechanically treated using a diamond bur and air abrasion [7][8][9][10][11][12][13][14][15][16][17][18][19][20][21][22]. Such treatments remove the aged surface layer of the existing composite restoration and create irregularities, which increase the surface wettability, roughness and total surface area [23].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Such treatments remove the aged surface layer of the existing composite restoration and create irregularities, which increase the surface wettability, roughness and total surface area [23]. After the preparation, the surface is cleaned with phosphoric acid for debris and smear layer removal [18][19][20]22,[24][25][26], or by a hydrofluoric acid to dissolve silica filler particles and to enlarge surface area [7][8][9]12,[27][28][29]. Many studies have shown that to increase the composite repair strength it is necessary to use intermediate agents, most commonly dental adhesive systems [10,16,[20][21][22][30][31][32][33][34].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

The Effect of Surface Treatment and Adhesive System on the Durability of Composite Repairs

Comba¹,

Bradna²,

Lenčová³

et al. 2015

Dentistry

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

a few studies employed composite materials aged for a longer period ranging from six months to six years, simulating more realistic aging of composite restorations [7,10,21,36-38]. In the oral cavity, the adhesive bond between the existing composite restoration and the repair composite resin is exposed to water, enzymes, bacteria, various chemical substances and mechanical stress, which can initiate its degradation. The chemical substances that might influence the quality of the adhesive bond also include surfactants used as foaming agents in toothpastes. By decreasing the surface tension, the penetration of water into the adhesive joint can be enhanced, accelerating the hydrolysis of the adhesive and reducing the composite repair strength. The aim of the study was to evaluate the long-term resistance of the adhesive bond between the existing and repair composite materials created with several adhesive systems and different surface treatments subjected to prolonged exposure to water and a surfactant solution. The null hypothesis stated that different surface treatments, adhesive systems and the environment have no impact on the long-term strength of composite repairs. Materials and Methods Specimen preparation A micro-hybrid composite material (Filtek Z250, 3M ESPE, Seefeld, Germany) was used in the study. The composite substrates (n=72) were

show abstract

The reparability of contemporary composite resins

Cited by 21 publications

References 25 publications

Shear bond strength of different surface treatments in bulk fill, microhybrid, and nanoparticle repair resins

Shear bond strength of different surface treatments in bulk fill, microhybrid, and nanoparticle repair resins

Comparative Evaluation of Different Surface Treatments on the Repair Shear Bond Strength of Three Nanohybrid Composites: An in vitro Study

The Effect of Surface Treatment and Adhesive System on the Durability of Composite Repairs

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About