Evaluation of Shear Bond Strength of Compomer Repaired with Different Protocols

Ahmet Alper Büyüksalih; Sevinç Boran; Akif Demirel; Zeynep Ökte

doi:10.7126/cumudj.1659233

TR EN

Farklı Protokollerle Onarılan Kompomerlerin Makaslama Bağlanma Dayanımının Değerlendirilmesi

Öz

Amaç: Bu çalışmanın amacı, farklı onarım protokolleri kullanılarak onarılan kompomer örneklerinin bağlanma dayanımlarını in-vitro koşullar altında karşılaştırmalı olarak değerlendirilmesidir. Gereç ve Yöntemler: 60 kompomer örneği 10×2.5×2 mm3 boyutlarındaki metal kalıplar kullanılarak hazırlanmıştır. Hazırlanan örnekler 5-55 °C arasındaki banyoda 30 saniye bekleme süresi ile 5000 döngü olacak şekilde ısıl işleme tabi tutulmuştur. Örnekler daha sonra universal adeziv (Grup 1- Prime&Bond® Universal), 2 aşamalı total etch sistem (Grup 2- %35 Scotchbond Universal OF Acid+Prime&- Bond® Universal) ve silan bağlayıcı ajan (Grup 3- Monobond Plus+Prime&Bond® Universal) olmak üzere 3 farklı onarım protokolü grubuna rastgele atanmıştır. Her grup için örnekler 20×2.5×2 mm3'lük kalıplara yeniden yerleştirilmiş ve onarım yüzeyi ilgili onarım protokolüne tabi tutulmuştur. Kompomer materyali kalıpların kalan alanlarına yerleştirilmiş, polimerize edilmiş ve bitirme işlemleri yapılmıştır. Makaslama bağlanma dayanımı testi üniversal test cihazı kullanılarak yapılmıştır. Elde edilen veriler Anova ve Tukey's HSD testleri ile analiz edilmiştir. İstatistiksel anlamlılık seviyesi %5 olarak alınmıştır. Bulgular: Grup 3'teki örnekler, Grup 1 ve Grup 2'ye kıyasla istatistiksel olarak anlamlı bir farkla daha yüksek onarım bağlanma dayanımı değerleri sunmuştur (sırasıyla p=0.000 ve p=0.005). Ancak, Grup 1 ve Grup 2 arasında istatistiksel anlamlı bir farklılık bulunmamıştır (p=0.639). Sonuçlar: Kompomer restorasyonların onarımında silan kullanımı geleneksel onarım yöntemlerine alternatif olarak önerilebilir.

Anahtar Kelimeler

Evaluation of Shear Bond Strength of Compomer Repaired with Different Protocols

Abstract

Objectives: This study aimed to comparatively assess the bond strengths of the repaired compomer samples using different repair protocols under in-vitro conditions. Materials and Methods: 60 compomer specimens were prepared with the dimensions of 10×2.5×2 mm3 using metal moulds. The prepared samples were thermocycled for 5000 cycles, between 5-55 °C with 30 seconds dwell time. Samples were then randomly assigned to 3 different repair protocol groups as universal adhesive (Group 1- Prime&Bond® Universal), 2 step total etch system (Group 2- 35% Scotchbond Universal OF Acid+Prime&- Bond® Universal) and silane coupling agent (Group 3- Monobond Plus+Prime&Bond® Universal). For each group, the specimens were re-placed in a 20×2.5×2 mm3 mould and repair surface was subjected to the relevant repair protocol. Compomer restorative was placed to the remaining area of the moulds, polymerised and finished. Shear bond strength testing was performed using a universal testing machine. Obtained data were analyzed with Anova and Tukey’s HSD tests. The statistical significance level was considered as 5%. Results: Samples in Group 3 presented higher repair bond strength values with a statistically significant difference compared to Group 1 and Group 2 (p=0.000 and p=0.005, respectively). However, no statistical significant difference was found between Group 1 and Group 2 (p=0.639). Conclusions: The use of silane in the repair of compomer restorations can be recommended as an alternative to traditional repair methods.

Keywords

Supporting Institution

N/A

Project Number

N/A

Ethical Statement

This study does not contain any biological material or demographic data from humans or animals. It is a dental material study conducted only in a laboratory environment. Therefore, ethics committee approval is not required for this study.

Thanks

N/A

References

1. Frencken JE, Peters MC, Manton DJ, Leal SC, Gordan VV, Eden E. Minimal intervention dentistry for managing dental caries - a review: report of a FDI task group. Int Dent J 2012;62:223-243.
2. Schwendicke F, Frencken JE, Bjørndal L, Maltz M, Manton DJ, Ricketts D, Van Landuyt K, Banerjee A, Campus G, Doméjean S, Fontana M, Leal S, Lo E, Machiulskiene V, Schulte A, Splieth C, Zandona AF, Innes NP. Managing Carious Lesions: Consensus Recommendations on Carious Tissue Removal. Adv Dent Res 2016;28:58-67.
3. BaniHani A, Santamaría RM, Hu S, Maden M, Albadri S. Minimal intervention dentistry for managing carious lesions into dentine in primary teeth: an umbrella review. Eur Arch Paediatr Dent 2022;23:667-693.
4. Green D, Mackenzie L, Banerjee A. Minimally Invasive Long-Term Management of Direct Restorations: the '5 Rs'. Dent Update 2015;42:413-416, 419-421, 423-426.
5. Sarrett DC. Clinical challenges and the relevance of materials testing for posterior composite restorations. Dent Mater 2005;21:9-20.
6. Kanzow P, Wiegand A, Göstemeyer G, Schwendicke F. Understanding the management and teaching of dental restoration repair: Systematic review and meta-analysis of surveys. J Dent 2018;69:1-21.
7. Albashaireh ZSM, Maghaireh GA, Alsaafeen HN. Effects of silane coupling treatment on the clinical performance of direct repaired resin-based composite (RBC) restorations with or without prior surface sandblasting: A randomized controlled trial. J Dent 2023;139:104740.
8. Hatipoğlu Ö, Martins JFB, Karobari MI, Taha N, Aldhelai TA, Ayyad DM, Madfa AA, Martin-Biedma B, Fernandez R, Omarova BA, Yi LW, Alfirjani S, Lehmann A, Sugumaran S, Petridis X, Krmek SJ, Wahjuningrum DA, Iqbal A, Abidin IZ, Intriago MG, Elhamouly Y, Palma PJ, Hatipoğlu FP. Repair versus replacement of defective direct dental restorations: A multinational cross-sectional study with meta-analysis. J Dent 2024;148:105096.

9. Casagrande L, Laske M, Bronkhorst EM, Huysmans MCDNJM, Opdam NJM. Repair may increase survival of direct posterior restorations - A practice based study. J Dent 2017;64:30-36.
10. Albashaireh ZS, Ghazal M, Kern M. Effects of endodontic post surface treatment, dentin conditioning, and artificial aging on the retention of glass fiber-reinforced composite resin posts. J Prosthet Dent 2010;103:31-39.
11. Wendler M, Belli R, Panzer R, Skibbe D, Petschelt A, Lohbauer U. Repair Bond Strength of Aged Resin Composite after Different Surface and Bonding Treatments. Materials (Basel) 2016;9:547.
12. Souza MO, Leitune VC, Rodrigues SB, Samuel SM, Collares FM. One-year aging effects on microtensile bond strengths of composite and repairs with different surface treatments. Braz Oral Res 2017;31:e4.
13. Matinlinna JP, Lung CYK, Tsoi JKH. Silane adhesion mechanism in dental applications and surface treatments: A review. Dent Mater 2018;34:13-28.
14. Mendes LT, Loomans BAC, Opdam NJM, Silva CLD, Casagrande L, Lenzi TL. Silane Coupling Agents are Beneficial for Resin Composite Repair: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of In Vitro Studies. J Adhes Dent 2020;22:443-453.
15. Lung CY, Matinlinna JP. Aspects of silane coupling agents and surface conditioning in dentistry: an overview. Dent Mater 2012;28:467-477.
16. Krithikadatta J, Gopikrishna V, Datta M. CRIS Guidelines (Checklist for Reporting In-vitro Studies): A concept note on the need for standardized guidelines for improving quality and transparency in reporting in-vitro studies in experimental dental research. J Conserv Dent 2014;17:301-304.
17. Martin J, Fernandez E, Estay J, Gordan VV, Mjor IA, Moncada G. Minimal invasive treatment for defective restorations: five-year results using sealants. Oper Dent 2013;38:125-133.
18. Fernández E, Martín J, Vildósola P, Oliveira Junior OB, Gordan V, Mjor I, Bersezio C, Estay J, de Andrade MF, Moncada G. Can repair increase the longevity of composite resins? Results of a 10-year clinical trial. J Dent 2015;43:279-286.
19. Michelotti G, Niedzwiecki M, Bidjan D, Dieckmann P, Deari S, Attin T, Tauböck TT. Silane Effect of Universal Adhesive on the Composite-Composite Repair Bond Strength after Different Surface Pretreatments. Polymers (Basel) 2020;12:950.
20. da Costa TR, Serrano AM, Atman AP, Loguercio AD, Reis A. Durability of composite repair using different surface treatments. J Dent 2012;40:513-521.
21. Staxrud F, Dahl JE. Silanising agents promote resin-composite repair. Int Dent J 2015;65:311-315.
22. Souza EM, Francischone CE, Powers JM, Rached RN, Vieira S. Effect of different surface treatments on the repair bond strength of indirect composites. Am J Dent 2008;21:93-96.
23. Leelaponglit, S.; Maneenacarith, A.; Wutikhun, T.; Klaisiri, A. The Various Silane Agents in Universal Adhesives on Repair Strength of Resin Composite to Resin Composite. J Compos Sci 2023;7:7.
24. Jusué-Esparza G, Rivera-Gonzaga JA, Grazioli G, Monjarás-Ávila AJ, Zamarripa-Calderón JE, Cuevas-Suárez CE. Influence of silane coupling agent and aging on the repair bond strength of dental composites. J Adhes Sci Technol 2022;37:913–922.
25. Gajski P, Par M, Tarle Z, Marovic D. Effect of Silane-Containing Adhesives on Repair Bond Strength between Fresh and Aged Composite Materials—A Pilot Study. Materials 2024; 17:4646.
26. Samimi P, Amiri K, Fathpour K. Repairability of Compomers with Different Methods of Surface Conditioning. J Dent (Tehran) 2005;2:54-57.

Details

Primary Language

English

Subjects

Paedodontics

Journal Section

Research Article

Authors

Ahmet Alper Büyüksalih
0009-0009-9519-5317
Türkiye

Sevinç Boran
0009-0006-9098-8375
Türkiye

Akif Demirel ^*
0000-0002-1433-0452
Türkiye

Zeynep Ökte
0000-0001-5047-6347
Türkiye

Publication Date

September 30, 2025

Submission Date

March 16, 2025

Acceptance Date

July 22, 2025

Published in Issue

Year 2025 Volume: 28 Number: 3

DOI

https://doi.org/10.7126/cumudj.1659233

IZ

https://izlik.org/JA24PF76YU

Cite

RIS / Bibtex

EndNote

Büyüksalih AA, Boran S, Demirel A, Ökte Z (September 1, 2025) Evaluation of Shear Bond Strength of Compomer Repaired with Different Protocols. Cumhuriyet Dental Journal 28 3 370–374.