Effect of Universal Adhesive and Thermocycling on Shear Bond Strength of Resin Composite Repair
Article Sidebar
Main Article Content
Abstract
Objectives: To compare the effect of universal adhesive and conventional adhesive system on shear bond strength of resin composite repair before and after thermocycling.
Methods: Ninety resin composite (FiltekTM Z350 XT) rods were aged by 5,000 cycles of thermocycling and mounted with self-cured resin acrylic in PVC tubes. Resin composite surface was polished with 320-grit silicon carbide paper disc. Each resin composite surface was prepared with 37% phosphoric acid for 15 s. Specimens were randomly divided into 6 groups of 15 specimens each (n=15). SM group and SM+T group: apply Scotchbond™ Multi-Purpose Plus Adhesive. SiSM group and SiSM+T group: apply silane (RelyXTM Ceramic Primer) and Scotchbond™ Multi-Purpose Plus Adhesive. SBU group and SBU+T group: apply Single Bond Universal Adhesive. All specimens were light cured for 20 s. Resin composite were filled on prepared surfaces and light cured for 40 s. Specimens were stored in distilled water at 37o C for 24 hour. Specimens in SM, SiSM and SBU groups were loaded in a Universal Testing Machine for shear bond strength testing without thermocycling. Specimens in SM+T, SiSM+T and SBU+T groups were loaded after 5,000 thermocycles. Bond strength data was statistically analyzed by One-way ANOVA and T-test. Failure modes were examined by an inverted phase contrast microscope.
Results: After 24 hour of composite repair, SBU group (113.62+24.80 MPa) showed the statically significant difference in the highest shear bond strength compared to SM group (63.92+17.82 MPa) and SiSM group (85.82+9.82 MPa). After thermocycling, SM+T group (36.41+7.01 MPa) showed significant lower bond strength than SM group, SiSM+T group (63.01+14.44 MPa) was lower than SiSM group, and SBU+T group (84.48+6.86 MPa) was lower than SBU group. All specimens in SM, SM+T, SiSM and SiSM+T groups showed adhesive failure, while SBU group showed cohesive failure and SBU+T group showed both failure types.
Conclusion: Resin composite repair with Single Bond Universal Adhesive showed higher shear bond strength than Scotchbond™ Multi-Purpose Plus Adhesive, either with silane or not, and the bond strength decrease after thermocycling.
Article Details
References
Wattanapanich S. Resin composite repair. CM Dent J 2011; 32: 29-37. (in thai)
Blum IR, Lynch CD, Wilson NHF. Factors influencing repair of dental restorations with resin composite. Clin Cosmet Investig Dent 2014; 6: 81-87.
Muangmingsuk A, Senawong P. Shift in operative management. J Thai Oper Dent 2008; 9: 22-41. (in thai)
Mount GJ. Minimal intervention dentistry: cavity classification and preparation. J Minim Interv Dent 2009; 2: 150-162.
Millar BJ, Robinson PB, Davies BR. Effects of the removal of composite resin restorations on clsss II cavities. Br Dent J 1992; 173: 210-212.
Tyas MJ. Minimally intervention dentistry, a review. Int Dent J 2000; 50: 1-12.
Söderholm KJ, Roberts MJ. Variables influencing the repair strength of dental composites. Scand J Dent Res 1991; 99: 173-180.
Malacarne J, Carvalho RM, de Goes MF, et al. Water sorption/solubility of dental adhesive resins. Dent Mater 2006; 22: 973-980.
Bonstein T, Garlapo D, Donarummo J. Bush PJ. Evaluation of varied repair protocols applied to aged composite resin. J Adhes Dent 2005; 7: 41-49.
Swift EJ. Evaluation of new methods for composite repair. Dent Mater 1992; 8: 362-365.
Eliasson ST, Tibballs J, Dahl JE. Effect of difference surface treatments and adhesives on repair bond strength of resin composites after one and 12 months of storage using an improved microtensile test method. Oper Dent 2014; 39: E206-E216.
Hamano N, Chiang YC, Nyamaa I, et al. Repair of silorane-based dental composites: influence of surface treatments. Dent Mater 2012; 28: 894-902.
Tezvergil A, Lassila LVJ, Vallittu PK. Composite-composite repair bond strength: effect of different adhesion primers. J Dent 2003; 31: 521-525.
Oztas N, Alacam A, Bardakcy Y. The effect of air abrasion with two new bonding agents on composite repair. Oper Dent 2003; 28; 149-154.
Padipatvuthikul P, Mair LH. Bonding of composite to water aged composite with surface treatment. Dent Mater 2007; 23: 519-525.
"Technical product profile ScotchbondTM Universal Adhesive." [cited 2015 November 22]. Available from: http://multimedia.3m.com/mws/media/754751O/scotchbond-universal-adhesive-technical-product-profile.pdf
Özcan M, Koc-Dundar B. Composite-composite adhesion in dentistry: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Adhes Sci Technol 2014; 28: 2209–2229.
Brendeke J, Özcan M. Effect of physicochemical aging conditions on the composite- composite repair bond strength. J Adhes Dent 2007; 9: 399-406.
Gale M, Darvell B. Thermal cycling procedures for laboratory testing of dental restorations. J Dent 1999; 27: 89-99.
Özcan M, Barbosa SH, Melo RM, Galhano GAP, Bottino MA. Effect of surface conditioning methods on the microtensile bond strength of resin composite to composite after aging conditions. Dent Mater 2007; 23: 1276-1282.
Ferracane JL, Berge HX, Condon JR. In vitro aging of dental composites in water effect of degree of conversion, filler volume, and filler/matrix coupling. J Biomed Res 1998; 42: 465-472.
da Costa TRF, Serrano AM, Atman APF, et al. Durability of composite repair using different surface treatments. J Dent 2012; 40: 513-521.
Hickel R, Brushaver K, Ilie N. Repair of restorations – criteria for decision making and clinical recommendation. Dent Mater 2013; 29: 28-50.
Hemadri M, Saritha G, Rajasekhar V, Pachlag KA, Purushotham R, Reddy VKK. Shear bond strength of repaired composites using surface treatments and repair materials: an in vitro study. J Int Oral Health 2014; 6: 22-25.
Staxrud F, Tveit AB, Rukke HV, et al. Repair of defective composite restorations. A questionnaire study among dentists in the Public Dental Service in Norway. J Dent 2016; 52: 50–54.
Lynch CD, Blum IR, Frazier KB, Haisch L, Wilson NHF. Repair or replacement of defective direct composite restoration: Contemporary teaching in US and Canadian dental schools. J Am Dent Assoc 2012; 143: 157-163.
Blum IR, Lynch CD, Wilson NHF. Teaching of direct composite restoration repair in undergraduate dental schools in United Kingdom and Ireland. Eur J Dent Edu 2012; 16: E53-E58.
Blum IR, Lynch CD, Wilson NHF. Teaching of the repair of defective composite restoration in Scandinavian dental schools. J Oral Rehabil 2012; 39: 210-216.
Blum IR, Lynch CD, Schreiver A, Heidemann D, Wilson NHF. Repair versus replacement of defective composite restoration in German dental schools. Eur J Prosth Restor Dent 2011;19:56-61.
Jafarzadeh Kashi TS, Erfan M, Rakhshan V, Aghabaigi N, Tabatabaei FS. An in vitro assessment of the effects of three surface treatments on repair bond strength of aged composites. Oper Dent 2011; 36: 608-617.
Bonstein T, Garlapo D, Donarummo J Jr, Bush PJ. Evaluation of varied repair protocol applied to aged composite resin. J Adhes Dent 2005; 7: 41-49.
De Munck J, Van Landuyt K, Peumans M, et al A critical review of the durability of adhesion to tooth tissue: methods and results. J Dent Res 2005; 84: 118-132.
Van Meerbeek B, De Munck J, Yoshida Y, et al. Buonocore memorial lecture. Adhesion to enamel and dentin: current status and future challenges. Oper Dent 2003; 28: 215-235.
Staxrud F, Dahl JE. Silanising agents promote resin-composite repair. Int Dent J 2015; 65: 311–315.
Eliasson ST, Dahl JE. Effect of curing and silanizing on composite repair bond strength using an improved micro-tensile test method. Acta Biomater Odontol Scand 2017; 3: 21-29.
Çakir NN, Demirbuga S, Balkaya H, Karadaş M. Bonding performance of universal adhesives on composite repairs, with or without silane application. J Conserv Dent 2018; 21: 263–268.
Gajewski VE, Pfeifer CS, Froes-Salgado NR, Boaro LC, Braga RR. Monomers used in resin composites: degree of conversion, mechanical properties and water sorption/ solubility. Braz Dent J 2012; 23: 508–514.
Thonglert T, Thong-ngarm W. Effect of universal adhesive on shear bond strength of resin composite to feldspathic ceramic. CM Dent J 2016; 37: 81-89. (in thai)
Sukprapaporn C, Kanjantra P. Effect of silane coupling agent in universal adhesive agent on shear bond strength between resin composite and lithium disilicate. CM Dent J 2017; 38: 111-126. (in thai)
Moro AFV, Ramos AB, Rocha GM, Perez CDR. Effect of prior silane application on the bond strength of a universal adhesive to a lithium disilicate ceramic. J Prosthet Dent 2017; 118: 666-671.
Ilie N, Stawarczyk B.Efficiency of different repair kits on bonding to age dental resin composite substrates. Int J Adhes Adhes 2015; 58: 7-12.
Özcan M, Alander P, Vallittu PK, Huysmans MC, Kalk W. Effect of three surface conditioning methods to improve bondstrength of particulate filler resin composites. J Mater Sci Mater Med 2005; 16: 21-27.