Influence of different surface treatments on the bond strength between composites and resin cement

Article Sidebar

Published: Jan 7, 2022
Keywords:
surface conditioning, resin cement, , composite resin, material testing, bond strength, microshear bond

Main Article Content

Luisa Vasconcelos Alves

Abstract

Purpose: Evaluate the influence of different surface treatments on bond strength (BS) between composite and a resin cement. Material and Methods: - 75 discs (10x2 mm)of Filtek P90, Filtek Z250 and Filtek Z350 XT (3M ESPE), were divided into 5 groups according to the treatment: C= control - no treatment; sandblasting J= aluminum oxide (50μm); sandblasting JE = + 99.3% ethanol for 5 min; silica coating S = (3M-ESPE Cojet - 30 microns); SS = silica coating + silane., Resin cement was inserted(3M ESPE-RelyX ARC) in PVC tubes (0.5 x 0.80 mm) attached on the composite discs surface. After 24 hours of artificial saliva storage at 37oC, the specimens were tested for microshear crosshead speed of 1.0 mm/min. Data were evaluated in two-way ANOVA and Tukey's test (5%) for contrast. Results: Sandblasting with aluminum oxide (S) increased the BS for composites Z350 and P90. Except for ethanol treatment, the remaining treatments did not improve the BS for Z250. Also, silica coating followed by silane application showed similar results as control for all composites.


Conclusion: BS values were dependent on the type of composite and the surface treatment used. Sandblasting with aluminum oxide seems to be an effective surface treatment for composites and may lead to higher BS values, while the use of ethanol might result in lower BS values.

Article Details

How to Cite
Luisa Vasconcelos Alves. (2022). Influence of different surface treatments on the bond strength between composites and resin cement. Naval Dental Jounal, 47(2). Retrieved from http://portaldeperiodicos.marinha.mil.br/index.php/odontoclinica/article/view/1139
Issue
Vol 47 No 2 (2020): Naval Dental Journal
Section
Original Article
Creative Commons License

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.

References

Chen MH. Update on dental nanocomposites. JDR. 2010;89(6):549-60.
2. Drummond JL. Degradation, fatigue, and failure of resin dental composite materials. JDR. 2008;87(8):710-9.
3. Ferracane JL. Resin composite--state of the art. Dent. Mat. 2011;27(1):29-38.
4. Albaladejo A, Osorio R, Papacchini F, Goracci C, Toledano M, Ferrari M. Post silanization improves bond strength of translucent posts to flowable composite resins. J Biomed. Mater. Res. B. Applied biomaterials. 2007;82(2):320-4.
5. Goracci C, Ferrari M. Current perspectives on post systems: a literature review. ADJ. 2011;56 Suppl 1:77-83.
6. Goracci C, Raffaelli O, Monticelli F, Balleri B, Bertelli E, Ferrari M. The adhesion between prefabricated FRC posts and composite resin cores: microtensile bond strength with and without post-silanization. Dent. Mat. 2005;21(5):437-44.
7. Papacchini F, Dall'Oca S, Chieffi N, Goracci C, Sadek FT, Suh BI, et al. Composite-to-composite microtensile bond strength in the repair of a microfilled hybrid resin: effect of surface treatment and oxygen inhibition. JAD. 2007;9(1):25-31.
8. Shawkat ES, Shortall AC, Addison O, Palin WM. Oxygen inhibition and incremental layer bond strengths of resin composites. Dent. Mat. 2009;25(11):1338-46.
9. Cekic-Nagas I, Sukuroglu E, Canay S. Does the surface treatment affect the bond strength of various fibre-post systems to resin-core materials? J. Dent. 2011;39(2):171-9.
10. 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.JAD. 2009;11(6):469-78.
11. Rathke A, Tymina Y, Haller B. Effect of different surface treatments on the composite-composite repair bond strength. Clin Oral Invest. 2009;13(3):317-23.
12. Rinastiti M, Ozcan 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.
13. Rodrigues SA, Jr., Ferracane JL, Della Bona A. Influence of surface treatments on the bond strength of repaired resin composite restorative materials. Dent Mater. 2009;25(4):442-51.
14. Brosh T, Pilo R, Bichacho N, Blutstein R. Effect of combinations of surface treatments and bonding agents on the bond strength of repaired composites. JPD. 1997;77(2):122-6.
15. Caneppele TM, Zogheib LV, Gomes I, Kuwana AS, Pagani C. Bond strength of a composite resin to an adhesive luting cement. Braz. Dent. J. 2010;21(4):322-6.
16. Loomans BA, Cardoso MV, Roeters FJ, Opdam NJ, De Munck J, Huysmans MC, et al. Is there one optimal repair technique for all composites? Dent Mater. 2011;27(7):701-9.
17. Palasuk J, Platt JA, Cho SD, Levon JA, Brown DT, Hovijitra ST. Effect of surface treatments on microtensile bond strength of repaired aged silorane resin composite. Oper. Dent. 2013;38(1):91-9.
18. Wiegand A, Stawarczyk B, Buchalla W, Taubock TT, Ozcan M, Attin T. Repair of silorane composite--using the same substrate or a methacrylate-based composite? Dent Mater. 2012;28(3):e19-25.