Header

UZH-Logo

Maintenance Infos

Effect of Composite Age on the Repair Bond Strength after Different Mechanical Surface Pretreatments


Dieckmann, Phoebe; Baur, Anina; Dalvai, Vanessa; Wiedemeier, Daniel B; Attin, Thomas; Tauböck, Tobias T (2020). Effect of Composite Age on the Repair Bond Strength after Different Mechanical Surface Pretreatments. Journal of Adhesive Dentistry, 22(4):365-372.

Abstract

PURPOSE
To investigate the reparability of aged and fresh resin composite after different mechanical surface pretreatments.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
Sixty composite specimens (Filtek Supreme XTE, 3M Oral Care) were either aged by thermal cycling (5000 cycles, 5-55°C) and six months of water storage, or immediately processed within 5 min after polymerization. Both aged and fresh specimens were either ground with fine (46-µm) or coarse (100-µm) diamond burs and then silanized or sandblasted with aluminum oxide (Al2O3) and silanized. In the negative control group, no mechanical surface pretreatment or silanization was performed. Specimens (n = 6 per group) were repaired with an adhesive (OptiBond FL, Kerr) and a resin composite (Filtek Supreme XTE). Directly adhered composite-to-composite increments served as the positive control group. After thermoycling, microtensile repair bond strength was assessed and statistically analyzed (α = 0.05).
RESULTS
Aged composite surfaces revealed significantly lower repair bond strength than immediately repaired composite. The negative control group demonstrated the significantly lowest microtensile bond strength of all groups. No significant differences in repair bond strength were observed between the different mechanical pretreatments for both aged and fresh specimens. The repair bond strength of fresh composite pretreated with a fine diamond bur + Al2O3 + silane or a coarse diamond bur with/without Al2O3 + silane did not differ significantly from the positive control group.
CONCLUSION
The age of the repaired composite has a greater influence on repair bond strength than does the type of composite surface pretreatment.

Abstract

PURPOSE
To investigate the reparability of aged and fresh resin composite after different mechanical surface pretreatments.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
Sixty composite specimens (Filtek Supreme XTE, 3M Oral Care) were either aged by thermal cycling (5000 cycles, 5-55°C) and six months of water storage, or immediately processed within 5 min after polymerization. Both aged and fresh specimens were either ground with fine (46-µm) or coarse (100-µm) diamond burs and then silanized or sandblasted with aluminum oxide (Al2O3) and silanized. In the negative control group, no mechanical surface pretreatment or silanization was performed. Specimens (n = 6 per group) were repaired with an adhesive (OptiBond FL, Kerr) and a resin composite (Filtek Supreme XTE). Directly adhered composite-to-composite increments served as the positive control group. After thermoycling, microtensile repair bond strength was assessed and statistically analyzed (α = 0.05).
RESULTS
Aged composite surfaces revealed significantly lower repair bond strength than immediately repaired composite. The negative control group demonstrated the significantly lowest microtensile bond strength of all groups. No significant differences in repair bond strength were observed between the different mechanical pretreatments for both aged and fresh specimens. The repair bond strength of fresh composite pretreated with a fine diamond bur + Al2O3 + silane or a coarse diamond bur with/without Al2O3 + silane did not differ significantly from the positive control group.
CONCLUSION
The age of the repaired composite has a greater influence on repair bond strength than does the type of composite surface pretreatment.

Statistics

Citations

Dimensions.ai Metrics
13 citations in Web of Science®
13 citations in Scopus®
Google Scholar™

Altmetrics

Downloads

3 downloads since deposited on 15 Jan 2021
0 downloads since 12 months
Detailed statistics

Additional indexing

Item Type:Journal Article, refereed, original work
Communities & Collections:04 Faculty of Medicine > Center for Dental Medicine > Clinic of Conservative and Preventive Dentistry
Dewey Decimal Classification:610 Medicine & health
Scopus Subject Areas:Health Sciences > Orthodontics
Health Sciences > Oral Surgery
Health Sciences > Periodontics
Language:English
Date:2020
Deposited On:15 Jan 2021 09:26
Last Modified:24 Apr 2024 01:50
Publisher:Quintessence Publishing
ISSN:1461-5185
OA Status:Closed
Publisher DOI:https://doi.org/10.3290/j.jad.a44867
PubMed ID:32666062