Shear Bond Strength of Bulk-fill Resin Composite after Bur and Air Abrasion Surface Treatments
Objectives: To investigate the shear bond strength of aged bulk fill resin composite after being repaired using different surface treatments and types of resin composite.
Methods: Sixty cylindrical specimens of bulk fill resin composite (X-tra fill®) 6 mm in diameter and 4 mm thick were prepared using an acrylic mold. They were aged using thermocycling at 5o and 55o C for 5,000 cycles then mounted with self-cured resin acrylic in PVC tubes. The specimens were divided into 3 groups using surface treatments including (a) abraded with a diamond bur, (b) air abraded (sandblasted) and (c) no surface treatment. The specimens were then divided into 2 subgroups according to the resin composites used (viz.,Filtek Z 350 XT®or X-tra fill®). All of the samples were divided into 6 groups (n = 10); Group 1 (Bur + Filtek Z 350 XT®); Group 2 (Bur + X-tra fill®); Group 3 (Sandblast + Filtek Z 350 XT®); Group 4 (Sandblast + X-tra fill®); Group 5 (No surface treatment + Filtek Z 350 XT®); and, Group 6 (No surface treatment + X-tra fill®). The specimens were then tested for shear bond strength using a universal testing machine (0.5 mm/min). Fractured samples were examined under stereomicroscope to determine the mode of failure. The results were analyzed using Friedman's Two-way Analysis of Variance by rank with a significance level of 0.05.
Results: The respective median sort from highest to lowest values for Group 4, 2, 3, 1, 5, 6 were 25.8, 25.5, 22.1, 21.8, 14.0, and 13.2 MPa. Differences between values were statistically significant (p-value < 0.001). All surface treatments demonstrated significantly greater shear bond strength than not having any surface treatment. Groups 1, 2, 3 and 4 were statistically significant different from group 5 and 6 (p-value < 0.001), but there were no statistically significant difference between Group 1 and group 3 (p-value > 0.99), Group 2 and Group 4 (p-value = 0.94). Repairing with X-tra fill® demonstrated higher shear bond strengths than Filtek Z350 XT®. There was a statistically significant difference between Group 1 and Group 2 (p-value = 0.001), Group 3 and Group 4 (p-value = 0.019), but not between Group 5 and Group 6 (p-value = 0.762). All specimens in Groups 2 and, 4 showed cohesive failure, while Groups 5 and, 6 demonstrated adhesive failure, Groups 1 and, 3 exhibited both types failure.
Conclusion: The respective shear bond strengths of X-tra fill® after each repaired was influenced by the surface treatment and types of resin composite.
2.Gupta S, Parolia A, Jain A, et al. A comparative effect of various surface chemical treatments on the resin composite-composite repair bond strength. J Indian Soc Pedod Prev Dent 2015; 33(3): 245-249.
3. Alrahlah A, Silikas N, Watts DC. Post-cure depth of cure of bulk-fill dental resin composites. Dent Mater 2013; 30(2): 149-154.
4. Benetti AR, Havndrup-Pedersen C, HonorD, Pedersen MK, Pallesen. Bulk-Fill resin composites: Polymerization contraction, depth of cure, and gap formation. Oper Dent 2015; 40(2): 190-200.
5. Loomans B, Özcan M. Intraoral repair of direct and indirect restorations: procedures and guidelines. Oper Dent 2016; 41(7): 68-78.
6. Hasani Tabatabaei M, Alizade Y, Taalim S. Effect of various surface treatment on repair strength of composite resin. J Dent 2004; 1(4): 5-11.
7. Gupta S, Parolia A, Jain A, et al. A comparative effect of various surface chemical treatments on the resin composite-composite repair bond strength. J Indian Soc Pedod Prev Dent 2015; 33(3): 245-249.
8. Moncada G, Fermandez E, Martin J, Arancibia C, Mjör IA, Gordan VV. Increasing the longevity of restorations by minimal intervention: a two-year clinical trial. Oper Dent 2008; 33(3): 258-264.
9. Jafarzadeh Kashi TS, Erfan M, Rakhshan V, Aghabaigi N, Tabatabaei F. An in vitro assessment of the effect of three surface treatments on repair bond strength of aged composites. Oper Dent 2011; 36(6): 608-617.
10. Lee SE, Bae JH, Choi JW, et al. Comparative shear-bond strength of six dental self-adhesive resin cements to zirconia. Mater 2015; 8(6): 3306-3315.
11. Sampaio PCP, De Almeida Júnior AA, Francisconi LF, et al. Effect of Conventional and Resin-modified glass-Ionomer liner on dentin adhesive interface of class I cavity walls after thermocycling. Oper Dent 2011; 36(4): 403-413.
12. Padipatvuthikul Didron P. Effect of surface treatments on repair bond strength of nanocomposite. SWU Dent J 2013; 6(2): 12-23.
13. Della Bona A, Van Noort R. Shear vs. tensile bond strength of resin composite bonded to ceramic. J Dent Res 1995; 74(9): 1591-1596.
14. Sirisha K, Rambabu T, Shankar YR, Ravikumar P. Validity of bond strength tests: A critical review: Part I. J Conserv Dent 2014; 17(4): 305-311.
15. Özcan M, Corazza PH, Marocho SM, Barbosa SH, Bottino MA. Repair bond strength of microhybrid, nanohybrid and nanofilled resin composites: Effect of substrate resin type, surface conditioning and ageing. Clin Oral Investig 2013; 17(7): 1751-1758.
16. Pereira SMB, Castilho AA, Salazar-Marocho SM, Costa Oliveira KM, Ccahuana Váquez VZ, Bottino MA. Thermocycling effect on microhardness of laboratory composite resins. Braz J Oral Sci 2007; 6(22): 1372-1375.
17. Cavalcanti AN, De Lima AF, Peris AR, Mitsui FHO, Marchi GM. Effect of surface treatments and bonding agents on the bond strength of repaired composites. J Esthet Restor Dent 2007; 19(2): 90-98.
18. Perriard J, Lorente MC, Scherrer S, Belser UC, Wiskott HW. The effect of water storage, elapsed time and contaminants on the bond strength and interfacial polymerization of a nanohybrid composite. J Adhes Dent 2009; 11(6):469-478.
19.Melo MA, Moysés MR, Santos SG, Alcântara CE, Ribeiro JC. Effects of different surface treatments and accelerated artificial aging on the bond strength of composite resin repairs. Braz Oral Res 2011; 25(6): 485-491.
20. Reham SS, Omaima HG, Mohamed HZ, Hanan AN. The influence of different surface pretreatment on the shear bond strength of repaired composite. J Am Sci 2011; 7(7): 705-711.
21. Anjum A, Matin K, Uchida R, Tagami J. Influence of aging on direct resin composite repair bond. Int Chin J Dent 2008; 8: 53-61.
22. Ribeiro JC, Gomes PN, Moysés MR, Dias SC, Pereira LJ, Ribeiro JG. Shear strength evaluation of composite-composite resin associations. J Dent 2008; 36(5): 326-330.
23. Moncada G, Angel P, Fernandez E, Alonso P, Martin J, Gordan VV. Bond strength evaluation of nanohybrid resin-based composite repair. Gen Dent 2012; 60(3): 230-234.
24. Prakorn C. Bulk-fill resin composite. J Thai Oper Dent 2015; 12: 5-10. (in Thai)
25. Staxrud F, Dahl JE. Silanising agents promote resin-composite repair. Int Dent J 2015; 65(6): 311-315.
26. Kupiec KA, Barkmeier WW. Laboratory evaluation of surface treatments for composite repair. Oper Dent 1996; 21(2): 59-62.
27. Swift EJ J, LeValley BD, Boyer DB. Evaluation of new methods for composite repair. Dent Mater 1992; 8(6): 362-325.