The Journal of Contemporary Dental Practice

Register      Login

SEARCH WITHIN CONTENT

FIND ARTICLE

Volume / Issue

Online First

Archive
Related articles

VOLUME 10 , ISSUE 5 ( September, 2009 ) > List of Articles

RESEARCH ARTICLE

Effect of Different Surface Treatments on the Shear and Flexural Re-bond Strengths of a Micro-hybrid Composite

Peter Yaman, Jose Vivas, George Taylor

Citation Information : Yaman P, Vivas J, Taylor G. Effect of Different Surface Treatments on the Shear and Flexural Re-bond Strengths of a Micro-hybrid Composite. J Contemp Dent Pract 2009; 10 (5):1-7.

DOI: 10.5005/jcdp-10-5-1

License: CC BY-NC 3.0

Published Online: 01-09-2009

Copyright Statement:  Copyright © 2009; Jaypee Brothers Medical Publishers (P) Ltd.


Abstract

Aim

This study compared the shear bond strength (SBS) and flexural strength (FS) of repaired interfaces using three techniques of surface preparation and repair of a micro-hybrid composite.

Methods and Materials

Composite specimens for SBS tests (n=36: diameter=8 mm, thickness=3 mm) for repair were shaped in a metal mold, visible-light cured, and embedded in dental stone. Composite specimens for FS tests (n=36: 2 mm × 2 mm × 12.5 mm) for repair were shaped in a silicone mold. Three different methods of surface preparation were evaluated: Group A (control) specimens were treated by etching with 35% phosphoric acid; Group B specimens were airabraded with 50 μm aluminum oxide at 100 psi; and Group C specimens received two parallel, 1 mm-deep grooves using a #¼.-round bur before being treated by etching with 35% phosphoric acid. After surface treatment, a bonding agent was placed on each specimen, which was then light cured. Repairs were accomplished by adding more composite to the SBS or FS specimens. Specimens were thermocycled 500 times between 5°C and 55°C with 30-second dwell times. All specimens were tested by loading to failure at a rate of 0.5 mm/min using an Instron Universal Testing Machine.

Results

Mean SBSs in MPa were: Group A=24.5 +4.4, Group B=28.5 +4.3, and Group C=27.0 +2.8. Mean FSs (MPa) were: Group A=60.5 +9.9, Group B=73.9 +13.2 and Group C=81.3 +14.3. For the FS tests, Group B and C were significantly different than Group A, but Group C was not significantly different than group B. For the SBS test, Group B was significantly different than Group A, but Group C was not significantly different.

Conclusion

Acid-etching alone was not very effective in producing well-bonded composite repairs (only 55% of the FS of normal microhybrid composite). Mechanical retention was more effective (SBS, FS) than acid-etching and as effective (SBS) or more effective (FS) than air-abrasion (p<0.05) for repaired composite specimens.

Clinical Significance

Either mechanical retention or air abrasion is recommended prior to repairing an existing composite restoration to achieve the highest bond strength.

Citation

Vivas J, Yaman P, Taylor G. Effect of Different Surface Treatments on the Shear and Flexural Re-bond Strengths of a Micro-hybrid Composite. J Contemp Dent Pract [Internet]. 2009 Sept; 10(5). Available from: http://www. thejcdp.com/journal/view/effectof-differentsurface- treatments-on-the-shear-and-flexural-rebond- st.


PDF Share
  1. Effects of surface properties on bond strength between layers of newly cured dental composites. J Oral Rehabil. 1997; 24:358-60.
  2. Shear bond strength of immediately repaired light-cured composite resin restorations. Oper Dent. 1998; 23:121-7.
  3. Build-up and repair of light-cured composites: bond strength. J Dent Res. 1984; 63:1241-4.
  4. Variables influencing the repair strength of dental composites. Scand J Dent Res. 1991; 99:173-80.
  5. Bond strength of repaired anterior composite resins: an in vitro study. J Dent. 1998; 26:685-94.
  6. Effect of a silane coupling agent on composite repair strengths. Am J Dent. 1994; 7:200-2.
  7. Shear bond strength of repaired composite resins using a hybrid composite resin. Oper Dent. 1999; 24:156-61.
  8. Influence of surface treatment on bond strength between a heatactivated and a light-activated resin composite. Inter J Prosthodont. 1995; 8:179-86.
  9. Repair of an aged, contaminated indirect composite resin with a direct, visible-light-cured composite resin. Oper Dent. 1993;18(5):187-94.
  10. Strength of posterior composite repairs using different composite/bonding agent combinations. Oper Dent. 1991; 16:136-40.
  11. Effect of fatigue upon the interfacial bond strength of repaired composite resins. J Dent. 1990; 18(3):158-62.
  12. Surface treatment techniques for composite repair. Am J Dent. 1997; 10:279-83.
  13. The effect of mechanical undercuts on the strength of composite repair. J Am Dent Assoc. 2004; 135:1406-12.
  14. Why do shear bond tests pull out dentin? J Dent Rest. 1997; 76:1298-307.
  15. Threedimensional finite element analysis of the shear bond test. Dent Mater. 1995; 11:126-31.
  16. Shear vs. tensile bond strength of resin composite bonded to ceramic. J Dent Res. 1995; 74:1591-6.
  17. Flexural properties of eight flowable light-cured restorative materials, in immediate vs 24-hour water storage. Oper Dent. 2005; 30:239-49.
  18. Phillips’ science of dental materials. 10th ed. Philadelphia: WB Saunders; 2003. pp. 52-4, 62-3,82-3,665-6.
  19. Radiopacity of compomers, flowable and conventional resin composites for posterior restorations. Oper Dent. 1999; 24(1):20-5.
  20. Effect of combinations of surface treatments and bonding agents on the bond strength of repaired composites. J Prosthet Dent. 1997; 77(2):122-6.
PDF Share
PDF Share

© Jaypee Brothers Medical Publishers (P) LTD.