scholarly journals Bonding Performance for Repairs Using Bulk Fill and Conventional Methacrylate Composites

2021 ◽  
Vol 2021 ◽  
pp. 1-8
Author(s):  
Janaina Galvão Benzi ◽  
César Rogério Pucci ◽  
Maiara Rodrigues Freitas ◽  
Priscila Christiane Suzy Liporoni ◽  
Rayssa Ferreira Zanatta
Keyword(s):  
Bond Strength ◽  
Surface Treatment ◽  
Resin Composite ◽  
Surface Treatments ◽  
Control Group ◽  
Treatment Control ◽  
Composite Repair ◽  
Bonding Performance ◽  
C 30 ◽  
Universal Application

This study compared the bond strength of a composite repair made with a bulk fill composite and a conventional one using different surface treatments. Specimens were prepared as truncated cones (bases: 4 mm × 2 mm, height: 4 mm) using a bulk fill (OBFa: Filtek One) or a conventional resin (FTKa: Filtek Z250) (n = 66). They were artificially aged (10,000 cycles, 5°C–55°C, 30 sec) and subdivided according to surface treatments: NT—no treatment (control), Abr—abrasion with a diamond tip, and sand—sandblasting with aluminum oxide (50 μm). Treatments were performed over the smaller diameter surface, followed by adhesive (Scothbond Universal) application. A new specimen with similar dimensions was constructed over it using either the OBF or the FTK, totaling 12 groups (n = 11). Bond strength was assessed by tensile test. The data were submitted to two-way ANOVA separately for OBFa and FTKa, followed by Tukey’s test ( p < 0.05 ). For the aged OBFa groups, there was significant differences for composite type and surface treatment, with higher values of bond strength when repaired with the same material (OBFa/OBF > OBFa/FTK), and sandblasting and bur abrasion presented higher values compared to the control group (NT). For the aged FTKa groups, there were no differences for the composite or surface treatment. Therefore, the bulk fill resin composite tested present better repair performance when the same composite was used, while the conventional resin composite was less influenced by the material and the surface treatment performed.

scholarly journals Surface Treatment Effect on Shear Bond Strength between Lithium Disilicate Glass-Ceramic and Resin Cement

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Siripan Simasetha ◽  
Awiruth Klaisiri ◽  
Tool Sriamporn ◽  
Kraisorn Sappayatosok ◽  
Niyom Thamrongananskul
Keyword(s):  
Bond Strength ◽  
Surface Treatment ◽  
Glass Ceramic ◽  
Shear Bond Strength ◽  
Resin Composite ◽  
Lithium Disilicate ◽  
Surface Treatments ◽  
Resin Cement ◽  
Control Group ◽  
Ceramic Bond

Abstract Objective The study aimed to evaluate the shear bond strength (SBS) of lithium disilicate glass-ceramic (LDGC) and resin cement (RC) using different surface treatments. Materials and Methods LDGC blocks (Vintage LD Press) were prepared, etched with 4.5% hydrofluoric acid, and randomly divided into seven groups (n = 10), depending on the surface treatments. The groups were divided as follows: 1) no surface treatment (control), 2) Silane Primer (KS), 3) Signum Ceramic Bond I (SGI), 4) Signum Ceramic Bond I/Signum Ceramic Bond II (SGI/SGII), 5) experimental silane (EXP), 6) experimental silane/Signum Ceramic Bond II (EXP/SGII), and 7) Experimental/Adper Scotchbond Multi-purpose Adhesive (EXP/ADP). The specimens were cemented to resin composite blocks with resin cement and stored in water at 37 °C for 24 hours. The specimens underwent 5,000 thermal cycles and were subjected to the SBS test. Mode of failure was evaluated under the stereo microscope. Statistical Analysis Data were analyzed with Welch ANOVA and Games-Howell post hoc tests (α = 0.05). Results The highest mean SBS showed in group EXP/ADP (45.49 ± 3.37 MPa); however, this was not significantly different from group EXP/SGII (41.38 ± 2.17 MPa) (p ≥ 0.05). The lowest SBS was shown in the control group (18.36 ± 0.69 MPa). This was not significantly different from group KS (20.17 ± 1.10 MPa) (p ≥ 0.05). Conclusions The different surface treatments significantly affected the SBS value between LDGC and RC. The application of pure silane coupling agent with or without the application of an adhesive improved the SBS value and bond quality.

scholarly journals Influence of Different Surface Treatments on Bond Strength of Resin Composite Using the Intrinsic Characterization Technique

2012 ◽  
Vol 38 (6) ◽  
pp. 635-643 ◽  
Author(s):  
DC Barcellos ◽  
MT Palazon ◽  
CR Pucci ◽  
LH Aizawa ◽  
SEP Gonçalves
Keyword(s):  
Phosphoric Acid ◽  
Bond Strength ◽  
Aluminum Oxide ◽  
Surface Treatment ◽  
Resin Composite ◽  
Surface Treatments ◽  
The Other ◽  
Control Group ◽  
Intrinsic Characterization ◽  
Color Pigment

SUMMARY Objective: This study evaluated the influence of different surface treatments on the resin bond strength/light-cured characterizing materials (LCCMs), using the intrinsic characterization technique. The intrinsic technique is characterized by the use of LCCMs between the increments of resin composite (resin/thin film of LCCM/external layer of resin covering the LCCM). Materials and Methods: Using a silicone matrix, 240 blocks of composite (Z350/3M ESPE) were fabricated. The surfaces received different surface treatments, totaling four groups (n=60): Group C (control group), no surface treatment was used; Group PA, 37% phosphoric acid for one minute and washing the surface for two minutes; Group RD, roughening with diamond tip; and Group AO, aluminum oxide. Each group was divided into four subgroups (n=15), according to the LCCMs used: Subgroup WT, White Tetric Color pigment (Ivoclar/Vivadent) LCCM; Subgroup BT, Black Tetric Color pigment (Ivoclar/Vivadent) LCCM; Subgroup WK, White Kolor Plus pigment (Kerr) LCCM; Subgroup BK, Brown Kolor Plus pigment (Kerr) LCCM. All materials were used according to the manufacturer's instructions. After this, block composites were fabricated over the LCCMs. Specimens were sectioned and submitted to microtensile testing to evaluate the bond strength at the interface. Data were submitted to two-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) (surface treatment and LCCMs) and Tukey tests. Results: ANOVA presented a value of p&lt;0.05. The mean values (±SD) for the factor surface treatment were as follows: Group C, 30.05 MPa (±5.88)a; Group PA, 23.46 MPa (±5.45)b; Group RD, 21.39 MPa (±6.36)b; Group AO, 15.05 MPa (±4.57)c. Groups followed by the same letters do not present significant statistical differences. The control group presented significantly higher bond strength values than the other groups. The group that received surface treatment with aluminum oxide presented significantly lower bond strength values than the other groups. Conclusion: Surface treatments of composite with phosphoric acid, diamond tip, and aluminum oxide significantly diminished the bond strength between composite and the LCCMs.

scholarly journals The Effect of GaAlAs Laser, Sandblasting, and Primers on Bond Strength between Zirconia Ceramic and Direct Resin Composite after Thermocycling

2021 ◽  
Vol 24 (3) ◽  
Author(s):  
Boonlert Kukiattrakoon ◽  
Pitchaporn Kosago
Keyword(s):  
Bond Strength ◽  
Surface Treatment ◽  
Diode Laser ◽  
Resin Composite ◽  
Surface Treatments ◽  
Zirconia Ceramic ◽  
Control Group ◽  
Composite Surface ◽  
Group A ◽  
One Way Anova

Objective: This study was conducted to evaluate the shear bond strength (SBS) of resin composite on zirconia ceramic after different surface treatments and thermocycling. Material and Methods: Two hundred and seven zirconia specimens were divided into 9 groups and treated as follows: Group C-no treatment (served as the control); Group PC-Clearfil Ceramic primer (CP); Group PZ-Z-Prime Plus primer (ZP); Group A-sandblasted with 50 µm Al2O3 at 0.25 MPa for 20 s at a distance of 10 mm; Group AC-sandblasted and coated with CP; Group AZ-sandblasted and coated with ZP; Group L-GaAlAs diode laser with 808±5 mm wavelength, 3 watts power, and 10 Hz frequency; Group LC-GaAlAs diode laser coated with CP; and Group LZ-GaAlAs diode laser coated with ZP. All specimens were directly bonded with a resin composite cylinder using Adper Scotchbond Multi-purpose. Specimens were stored at 37ºC for 30 days and subjected to 2,500 thermocycles from 5ºC and 55ºC before the SBS was performed. One-way ANOVA and Tukey’s HSD test (=0.05) were performed. Surface topography changes were evaluated with a scanning electron microscope (SEM). Results: Sandblasting combined with CP or ZP (25.08±0.86 and 24.78±0.13 MPa, respectively) yielded the highest SBS and was significantly different from other methods (p<0.05). SEM showed various degrees of changes depending on different surface treatments. Conclusion: Surface treatment by sandblasting combined with a CP or ZP significantly provide the highest SBS between zirconia and resin composite. KEYWORDS Bond strength; Resin composite; Surface treatment; Zirconia ceramic.

Effect of Er,Cr:YSGG Laser, Air Abrasion, and Silane Application on Repaired Shear Bond Strength of Composites

2013 ◽  
Vol 38 (3) ◽  
pp. E58-E66 ◽  
Author(s):  
SD Cho ◽  
P Rajitrangson ◽  
BA Matis ◽  
JA Platt
Keyword(s):  
Bond Strength ◽  
Aluminum Oxide ◽  
Surface Treatment ◽  
Shear Bond Strength ◽  
Resin Composite ◽  
Silica Coating ◽  
Surface Treatments ◽  
Control Group ◽  
Resin Composites ◽  
Air Abrasion

SUMMARY Aged resin composites have a limited number of carbon-carbon double bonds to adhere to a new layer of resin. Study objectives were to 1) evaluate various surface treatments on repaired shear bond strength between aged and new resin composites and 2) to assess the influence of a silane coupling agent after surface treatments. Methods Eighty disk-shape resin composite specimens were fabricated and thermocycled 5000 times prior to surface treatment. Specimens were randomly assigned to one of the three surface treatment groups (n=20): 1) air abrasion with 50-μm aluminum oxide, 2) tribochemical silica coating (CoJet), or 3) Er,Cr:YSGG (erbium, chromium: yttrium-scandium-gallium-garnet) laser or to a no-treatment control group (n=20). Specimens were etched with 35% phosphoric acid, rinsed, and dried. Each group was divided into two subgroups (n=10): A) no silanization and B) with silanization. The adhesive agent was applied and new resin composite was bonded to each conditioned surface. Shear bond strength was evaluated and data analyzed using two-way analysis of variance (ANOVA). Results Air abrasion with 50-μm aluminum oxide showed significantly higher repair bond strength than the Er,Cr:YSGG laser and control groups. Air abrasion with 50-μm aluminum oxide was not significantly different from tribochemical silica coating. Tribochemical silica coating had significantly higher repair bond strength than Er,Cr:YSGG laser and the control. Er,Cr:YSGG laser and the control did not have significantly different repair bond strengths. Silanization had no influence on repair bond strength for any of the surface treatment methods. Conclusion Air abrasion with 50-μm aluminum oxide and tribochemical silica followed by the application of bonding agent provided the highest repair shear bond strength values, suggesting that they might be adequate methods to improve the quality of repairs of resin composites.

scholarly journals Assessment the Bond Strength of Ceramic Brackets to CAD/CAM Nanoceramic Composite and Interpenetrating Network Composite after Different Surface Treatments

2018 ◽  
Vol 2018 ◽  
pp. 1-6 ◽  
Author(s):  
Mustafa Mehmet Özarslan ◽  
Özlem Üstün ◽  
Ulviye Sebnem Buyukkaplan ◽  
Çağatay Barutcigil ◽  
Nurullah Türker ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Bond Strength ◽  
Surface Treatment ◽  
Hydrofluoric Acid ◽  
Shear Bond Strength ◽  
Surface Treatments ◽  
Interpenetrating Network ◽  
Bonding Performance ◽  
Cad Cam ◽  
Ceramic Brackets ◽  
New Generation

Adult orthodontics may confront problems related to the bonding performance of orthodontic brackets to new generation restorative materials used for crown or laminate restorations. The aim of the present study was to investigate the shear bond strength of ceramic brackets to two new generation CAD/CAM interpenetrating network composite and nanoceramic composite after different surface treatments. Er,Cr:YSGG Laser, hydrofluoric acid (9%), sandblasting (50 μm Al2O3), and silane were applied to the surfaces of 120 CAD/CAM specimens with 2 mm thickness and then ceramic brackets were bonded to the treated surfaces of the specimens. Bond strength was evaluated using the shear bond strength test. According to the results, CAD/CAM block types and surface treatment methods have significant effects on shear bond strength. The lowest bond strength values were found in the specimens treated with silane (3.35 ± 2.09 MPa) and highest values were found in the specimens treated with sandblast (8.92 ± 2.77 MPa). Sandblasting and hydrofluoric acid surface treatment led to the most durable bonds for the two types of CAD/CAM blocks in the present study. In conclusion, different surface treatments affect the shear bond strength of ceramic brackets to CAD/CAM interpenetrating network composite and nanoceramic composite. Among the evaluated treatments, sandblasting and hydrofluoric acid application resulted in sufficient bonding strength to ceramic brackets for both of the CAD/CAM materials.

scholarly journals Shear Bond Strength of Composite Repair System to Bilayered Zirconia Using Different Surface Treatments (In Vitro Study)

2020 ◽  
Vol 23 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Ahmed Atef Baiomy ◽  
Jihan Farouk Younis ◽  
Ahmed Hassanen Khalil
Keyword(s):  
Bond Strength ◽  
Surface Treatment ◽  
Shear Bond Strength ◽  
Treatment Method ◽  
Surface Treatments ◽  
Repair System ◽  
Cohesive Failure ◽  
Air Abrasion ◽  
Composite Repair ◽  
Mode Of Failure

Objective:  the study is aimed to evaluate the effect of different surface treatment methods on shear bond strength between composite repair system and both of zirconia core and veneering porcelain and analyze the mode of failure between composite repair and ceramic surface. Material and methods: 40 Ceramic discs were fabricated with diameter of 7mm and 3mm thickness and divided according to material into two groups, Zirconia core discs (n = 20) and veneering porcelain discs (n = 20). Specimens were thermocycled and then each group was subdivided according to surface treatment method into 4 equal sub groups (n = 5) ,control subgroup I air abrasion, subgroup II Cojet, subgroup III laser, subgroup IV combination of air abrasion and laser surface treatment. Composite blocks were built up and polymerized on the surface of the specimens and shear bond strength of composite to each specimen was tested using a universal testing machine and mode of failure was evaluated using stereomicroscope. Results: Regardless of ceramic type; there was a statistically significant difference between surface treatments. Cojet recorded the highest mean shear bond strength. Laser showed the highest prevalence of adhesive failure.  Porcelain + Cojet showed the highest prevalence of cohesive failure. Conclusion: Cojet surface treatment provided superior shear bond strength regardless of the ceramic type whether zirconia or porcelain. Porcelain provided superior shear bond strength values in comparison to zirconia regardless of the surface treatment method tested. Porcelain showed higher percentage of cohesive failure that while the mode of failure in zirconia was most commonly adhesive.KEYWORDS Laser; Porcelain repair; Zirconia repair. 

scholarly journals Effect of Surface Treatments on Microtensile Bond Strength of Repaired Aged Silorane Resin Composite

2013 ◽  
Vol 38 (1) ◽  
pp. 91-99 ◽  
Author(s):  
J Palasuk ◽  
JA Platt ◽  
SD Cho ◽  
JA Levon ◽  
DT Brown ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Bond Strength ◽  
Aluminum Oxide ◽  
Surface Treatment ◽  
Acid Treatment ◽  
Resin Composite ◽  
Surface Treatments ◽  
Microtensile Bond Strength ◽  
Treatment Groups ◽  
Diamond Bur ◽  
Control Failure

SUMMARY Objective: This laboratory study compared the repaired microtensile bond strengths of aged silorane resin composite using different surface treatments and either silorane or methacrylate resin composite. Methods: One hundred eight silorane resin composite blocks (Filtek LS) were fabricated and aged by thermocycling between 8°C and 48°C (5000 cycles). A control (solid resin composite) and four surface treatment groups (no treatment, acid treatment, aluminum oxide sandblasting, and diamond bur abrasion) were tested (N=12 blocks, 108 beams/group). Each treatment group was randomly divided in half and repaired with either silorane resin composite (LS adhesive) or methacrylate resin composite (Filtek Z250/Single Bond Plus). After 24 hours in 37°C distilled water, microtensile bond strength testing was performed using a non-trimming technique. Surface topography after surface treatment was analyzed using scanning electron microscopy (SEM). Failure mode was examined using optical microscopy (50×). Results: Weibull-distribution survival analysis revealed that aluminum oxide sandblasting followed by silorane or methacrylate resin composite and acid treatment with methacrylate resin composite provided insignificant differences from the control (p&gt;0.05). All other groups were significantly lower than the control. Failure was primarily adhesive in all groups. Conclusion: Aluminum oxide sandblasting produced microtensile bond strength not different from the cohesive strength of silorane resin composite. After aluminum oxide sandblasting, aged silorane resin composite can be repaired with either silorane resin composite with LS system adhesive or methacrylate resin composite with methacrylate dental adhesive.

scholarly journals Effect of Surface Treatment on the Bond Strength of Quartz Fiber-Reinforced Resin Posts to Resin Cements: In Vitro Study

2017 ◽  
Vol 19 (2) ◽  
pp. 61
Author(s):  
Luis A. Herrera-Ocampo DDS, MSD ◽  
Mauricio Montero-Aguilar DDS, MSc ◽  
Erika Alfaro-Mayorga DDS, MSD
Keyword(s):  
Bond Strength ◽  
Surface Treatment ◽  
In Vitro Study ◽  
Surface Treatments ◽  
Resin Cement ◽  
Control Group ◽  
Quartz Fiber ◽  
Fiber Reinforced ◽  
Resin Cements

The purpose of this study was to determine the effect of different surface treatments on the bond strength between resin cements and quartz fiber-reinforced resin posts. Materials and methods: Sixty quartz fiber-reinforced resin posts (DT Light-Post™, Bisco™) were randomly divided into 12 experimental groups (n=5), according to the resin cement used (Biscem™ or Duolink™) and the surface treatment: Alcohol (control group), silanized, primer, sandblasted, sandblasted + silanized or sandblasted + primer. Cylindrical resin specimens were obtained using nanohybrid resin. The posts were cemented to the resin discs and push-out tests were conducted. Data were analyzed with ANOVA and T test for averages comparison and the Tukey HSD test with a 95% level of significance. Results: Biscem™ cement generally showed higher bond strength when compared to Duolink™ Significant differences were found between the control group and the sandblasted + silane and sandblasted + primer groups when using Duolink™cement. With Biscem™ cement, no differences between groups or with the control group were found.. Conclusion: Surface treatments on quartz fiber-reinforced resin poles seem to have no significant effect on the bond strength to resin cements, except when using Duolink™ cement with sandblasted posts and using silane or primer.

scholarly journals Effect of Air-Abraded Versus Laser-Fused Fluorapatite Glass-Ceramics on Shear Bond Strength of Repair Materials to Zirconia

Materials ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 14 (6) ◽  
pp. 1468
Author(s):  
Alaaeldin Elraggal ◽  
Nikolaos Silikas
Keyword(s):  
Surface Roughness ◽  
Bond Strength ◽  
Surface Treatment ◽  
Shear Bond Strength ◽  
Resin Composite ◽  
Glass Ceramics ◽  
Surface Treatments ◽  
Control Groups ◽  
Yag Laser ◽  
Repair Materials

Zirconia repair could be a feasible alternative option to total replacement in fractured zirconia-based restorations. Maximising the bond strength by enriching zirconia with fluorapatite glass-ceramics (FGC) powder has been addressed and compared to other surface treatments. Besides resin composite, other repair materials have been proposed and compared. Zirconia blocks received different surface treatments (A—sandblasting with tribochemical silica-coated alumina (CoJet). B—sandblasting with FGC powder (FGC), C—fluorapatite glass-ceramic coat+ neodymium-doped yttrium aluminum garnet laser irradiation (FGC + Nd: YAG), and D—no surface treatment). The surface roughness, topography, and crystallinity were investigated by a profilometer, scanning electron microscopy (SEM), and X-ray diffraction (XRD) analyses, respectively. For each surface treatment, three repair materials (feldspathic porcelain, lithium disilicate, and resin composite) were bonded to zirconia with 10, Methacryloyloxydecyl dihydrogen phosphate (MDP)–Monobond Plus/ Multilink Automix. Bonded specimens were thermocycled for 10,000 cycles and tested for shear bond strength (SBS) at a speed of 1 mm/min, followed by the analysis of the mode of failure. FGC + Nd: YAG laser group reported the highest surface roughness and monoclinic content compared to CoJet, FGC, and control groups. The highest mean SBS was found in FGC-blasted zirconia, followed by FGC + Nd: YAG laser and CoJet treated groups. However, the lowest SBS was found in control groups regardless of the repair material. Sandblasting zirconia with FGC powder increased SBS of resin to zirconia with lower monoclinic phase transformation compared to FGC + Nd: YAG or CoJet groups.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document