Effect of Different Surface Treatments on the Repair of Aged Bulk-Fill Composites: An In Vitro Study

Soner Şişmanoğlu

doi:10.7126/cumudj.646705

EN

Effect of Different Surface Treatments on the Repair of Aged Bulk-Fill Composites: An In Vitro Study

Abstract

Objectives: The aim of this in vitro study was to evaluate the efficiency of different surface treatments on the microtensile bond strength (µTBS) of aged bulk-fill composite.

Materials and Methods: Sixty bulk-fill resin-based composite (RBC) specimens in 5 x 5 x 5 dimensions were prepared. After the aging by thermal cycling for 5000 times between 5 and 55°C, substrate surfaces were abraded with SiC abrasive papers. Specimens were divided into 6 groups according to the surface treatment protocol: no surface treatment (control), control + Single Bond Universal (SBU; 3M ESPE) application, phosphoric acid etching (PA) + SBU, hydrofluoric acid etching (HF) + SBU, aluminum oxide air abrasion (AlO) + SBU, and tribochemical silica coating (TSC) + SBU. Surface roughness values were measured in five different directions using a contact profilometer (n=10). Then, specimens were repaired with a conventional RBC. After the repair, bonded specimens were cut into 1 mm² beams and µTBS values were determined until failure at a crosshead speed of 0.5 mm/min. Specimen surfaces after surface treatments were observed by SEM. Data were analyzed using ANOVA and Tukey tests (p<0.05).

Results: One-way ANOVA revealed significant difference (p<0.001) among the surface treatments. The lowest repair µTBS values were observed for the control group. SBU application alone significantly improved repair µTBS values (p<0.001). The highest µTBS values were obtained for the AlOand TSC, and HF followed. The surface roughness ranking for the five surface treatment protocols was as follows: TSC > AlO > HF > PA = Control.

Conclusions: Aged bulk-fill RBCs can be successfully repaired if effective and safe repair protocol is chosen. The highest µTBS values were obtained for the AlO and TSC. The use of universal adhesive alone is promising to facilitate the repair of bulk-fill RBCs.

Keywords

composite resins,dental restoration repair,dental adhesives,surface properties

Supporting Institution

None.

Project Number

None.

Thanks

The author would like to express his thanks and appreciation to Dr. Pınar ERÇAL for reviewing the manuscript in terms of English grammar.

References

Lee M-R, Cho B-H, Son H-H, Um C-M, Lee I-B. Influence of cavity dimension and restoration methods on the cusp deflection of premolars in composite restoration. Dent Mater. 2007;23(3):288–295.
Taha NA, Palamara JEA, Messer HH. Cuspal deflection, strain and microleakage of endodontically treated premolar teeth restored with direct resin composites. J Dent. 2009;37(9):724–730
Park J, Chang J, Ferracane J, Lee IB. How should composite be layered to reduce shrinkage stress: Incremental or bulk filling? Dent Mater. 2008;24(11):1501–1505.
Furness A, Tadros MY, Looney SW, Rueggeberg FA. Effect of bulk/incremental fill on internal gap formation of bulk-fill composites. J Dent. 2014;42(4):439–449.
Ilie N, Stark K. Effect of different curing protocols on the mechanical properties of low-viscosity bulk-fill composites. Clin Oral Investig. 2015;19(2):271–279.
Campodonico CE, Tantbirojn D, Olin PS, Versluis A. Cuspal deflection and depth of cure in resin-based composite restorations filled by using bulk, incremental and transtooth-illumination techniques. J Am Dent Assoc. 2011;142(10):1176–1182.
Ilie N, Hickel R. Investigations on a methacrylate-based flowable composite based on the SDRTM technology. Dent Mater. 2011;27(4):348–355.
Frauscher KE, Ilie N. Degree of conversion of nano-hybrid resin-based composites with novel and conventional matrix formulation. Clin Oral Investig. 2013;17(2):635–642.

Bucuta S, Ilie N. Light transmittance and micro-mechanical properties of bulk fill vs. conventional resin based composites. 2014;18(8):1991–2000.
Ferracane JL. Current trends in dental composites. Crit Rev Oral Biol Med. 1995;6(4):302–318.
Czasch P, Ilie N. In vitro comparison of mechanical properties and degree of cure of bulk fill composites. Clin Oral Investig. 2013;17(1):227–235.
Manhart J, Chen H, Hamm G, Hickel R. Buonocore Memorial Lecture. Review of the clinical survival of direct and indirect restorations in posterior teeth of the permanent dentition. Oper Dent. 2004;29(5):481–508.
Veloso SRM, Lemos CAA, de Moraes SLD, do Egito Vasconcelos BC, Pellizzer EP, de Melo Monteiro GQ. Clinical performance of bulk-fill and conventional resin composite restorations in posterior teeth: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Clin Oral Investig. 2019;23(1):221–233.
Fornazari I, Wille I, Meda E, Brum R, Souza E. Effect of Surface Treatment, Silane, and Universal Adhesive on Microshear Bond Strength of Nanofilled Composite Repairs. Oper Dent. 2017;42(4):367–374.
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 Heal JIOH. 2014;6(6):22–25.
Souza MO de, Leitune VCB, Rodrigues SB, Samuel SMW, Collares FM. One-year aging effects on microtensile bond strengths of composite and repairs with different surface treatments. Braz Oral Res. 2017;31:e4.
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(7):547.
Ayar MK, Guven ME, Burduroglu HD, Erdemir F. Repair of aged bulk-fill composite with posterior composite: Effect of different surface treatments. J Esthet Restor Dent. 2019;31(3):246-252.
Forss H, Widström E. From amalgam to composite: Selection of restorative materials and restoration longevity in Finland. Acta Odontol Scand. 2001;59(2):57–62.
Tezvergil A, Lassila LVJ, Vallittu PK. Composite-composite repair bond strength: effect of different adhesion primers. J Dent. 2003;31(8):521–525.
Pallesen U, van Dijken JWV. A randomized controlled 27 years follow up of three resin composites in Class II restorations. J Dent. 2015;43(12):1547–1558.
Opdam NJM, Bronkhorst EM, Loomans BAC, Huysmans M-CDNJM. Longevity of repaired restorations: A practice based study. J Dent. 2012;40(10):829–835.
Atalay C, Yazici AR, Ozgunaltay G. Bond strengths of bulk-fill resin composite repairs: effect of different surface treatment protocols in vitro. J Adhes Sci Technol. 2018;32(9):921–930.
Batista GR, Kamozaki MBB, Gutierrez NC, Caneppele TMF, Rocha Gomes Torres C. Effects of Different Surface Treatments on Composite Repairs. J Adhes Dent. 2015;17(5):421–426.
Li J. Effects of surface properties on bond strength between layers of newly cured dental composites. J Oral Rehabil. 2008;24(5):358–360.
Truffier-Boutry D, Place E, Devaux J, Leloup G. Interfacial layer characterization in dental composite. J Oral Rehabil. 2003;30(1):74–77.
Yap AUJ, Wee KEC, Teoh SH. Effects of cyclic temperature changes on hardness of composite restoratives. Oper Dent. 2002;27(1):25–29.
Ferracane JL. Hygroscopic and hydrolytic effects in dental polymer networks. Dent Mater. 2006;22(3):211–222.
Lino Carracho AJ, Chappell RP, Glaros AG, Purk JH, Eick JD. The effect of storage and thermocycling on the shear bond strength of three dentinal adhesives. Quintessence Int. 1991;22(9):745–752.
Helvatjoglu-Antoniades M, Koliniotou-Kubia E, Dionyssopoulos P. The effect of thermal cycling on the bovine dentine shear bond strength of current adhesive systems. J Oral Rehabil. 2004;31(9):911–917.
De Munck J, Van Landuyt K, Coutinho E, Poitevin A, Peumans M, Lambrechts P, et al. Micro-tensile bond strength of adhesives bonded to Class-I cavity-bottom dentin after thermo-cycling. Dent Mater. 2005;21(11):999–1007.
Rinastiti M, Özcan M, Siswomihardjo W, Busscher HJ. Effects of surface conditioning on repair bond strengths of non-aged and aged microhybrid, nanohybrid, and nanofilled composite resins. Clin Oral Investig. 2011;15(5):625–633.
Fawzy AS, El-Askary FS, Amer MA. Effect of surface treatments on the tensile bond strength of repaired water-aged anterior restorative micro-fine hybrid resin composite. J Dent. 2008;36(12):969–976.
Papacchini F, Magni E, Radovic I, Mazzitelli C, Monticellia F, Goracci C, et al. Effect of intermediate agents and pre-heating of repairing resin on composite-repair bonds. Oper Dent. 2007;32(4):363–371.
Dall’Oca S, Papacchini F, Goracci C, Cury AH, Suh BI, Tay FR, et al. Effect of oxygen inhibition on composite repair strength over time. J Biomed Mater Res B Appl Biomater. 2007;81(2):493–498.
Rinastiti M, Özcan M, Siswomihardjo W, Busscher HJ. Immediate repair bond strengths of microhybrid, nanohybrid and nanofilled composites after different surface treatments. J Dent. 2010;38(1):29–38.
Staxrud F, Dahl JE. Role of bonding agents in the repair of composite resin restorations. Eur J Oral Sci. 2011;119(4):316–322.
Loomans B, Özcan M. Intraoral Repair of Direct and Indirect Restorations: Procedures and Guidelines. Oper Dent. 2016;41(7):68–78.
Ozcan M, Bernasconi M. Adhesion to zirconia used for dental restorations: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Adhes Dent. 2015;17(1):7–26.
Kern M, Wegner SM. Bonding to zirconia ceramic: adhesion methods and their durability. Dent Mater. 1998;14(1):64–71.
Tantbirojn D, Fernando C, Versluis A. Failure Strengths of Composite Additions and Repairs. Oper Dent. 2015;40(4):364–371.
Ozcan M, Barbosa S, Melo R, Galhano G, Bottino M. Effect of surface conditioning methods on the microtensile bond strength of resin composite to composite after aging conditions. Dent Mater. 2007;23(10):1276–1282.
Fonseca RG, Martins SB, de Oliveira Abi-Rached F, Dos Santos Cruz CA. Effect of different airborne-particle abrasion/bonding agent combinations on the bond strength of a resin cement to a base metal alloy. J Prosthet Dent. 2012;108(5):316–323.
Loomans BAC, Vivan Cardoso M, Roeters FJM, Opdam NJM, De Munck J, Huysmans MCDNJM, et al. Is there one optimal repair technique for all composites? Dent Mater. 2011;27(7):701–709.
da Costa TRF, Serrano AM, Atman APF, Loguercio AD, Reis A. Durability of composite repair using different surface treatments. J Dent. 2012;40(6):513–521.

Details

Primary Language

English

Subjects

Health Care Administration

Journal Section

Research Article

Authors

Soner Şişmanoğlu ^*
0000-0002-1272-5581
Türkiye

Publication Date

December 29, 2019

Submission Date

November 14, 2019

Acceptance Date

December 24, 2019

Published in Issue

Year 1970 Volume: 22 Number: 4

DOI

https://doi.org/10.7126/cumudj.646705

IZ

https://izlik.org/JA26ED42JJ

Cite

RIS / Bibtex

EndNote

Şişmanoğlu S (December 1, 2019) Effect of Different Surface Treatments on the Repair of Aged Bulk-Fill Composites: An In Vitro Study. Cumhuriyet Dental Journal 22 4 451–460.

Cited By

Scoping Review: Effect of Surface Treatments on Bond Strength of Resin Composite Repair

Journal of Dentistry

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jdent.2023.104737

Comparison of adhesive system bond strength in composite restoration repairs: A systematic review and meta-analysis of in vitro studies

International Journal of Adhesion and Adhesives

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijadhadh.2024.103929

Öz

Effect of Different Surface Treatments on the Repair of Aged Bulk-Fill Composites: An In Vitro Study

Abstract

Keywords

Supporting Institution

Project Number

Thanks

References

Details

Primary Language

Subjects

Journal Section

Authors

Publication Date

Submission Date

Acceptance Date

Published in Issue

DOI

IZ

Cite

Cited By

Scoping Review: Effect of Surface Treatments on Bond Strength of Resin Composite Repair

Comparison of adhesive system bond strength in composite restoration repairs: A systematic review and meta-analysis of in vitro studies