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

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>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.

Download Full-text

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

Operative Dentistry ◽

10.2341/12-204-l ◽

2012 ◽

Vol 38 (6) ◽

pp. 635-643 ◽

Cited By ~ 2

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<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.

Download Full-text

Comparison of Silane Heat Treatment by Laser and Various Surface Treatments on Microtensile Bond Strength of Composite Resin/Lithium Disilicate

Materials ◽

10.3390/ma14247808 ◽

2021 ◽

Vol 14 (24) ◽

pp. 7808

Author(s):

Goknil Ergun-Kunt ◽

Rafat Sasany ◽

Mehmet Faruk Koca ◽

Mutlu Özcan

Keyword(s):

Heat Treatment ◽

Bond Strength ◽

Surface Treatment ◽

Composite Resin ◽

Resin Composite ◽

Acrylic Resin ◽

Composite Ceramic ◽

Lithium Disilicate ◽

Surface Treatments ◽

Microtensile Bond Strength

In the current study, we evaluated the effects of heat treatment (by Er:YAG or furnace) and various surface treatments on the microtensile bond strength (μTBS) of silanized lithium disilicate ceramic. Seventy lithium disilicate (IPS e. max Press; Ivoclar Vivadent) and composite resin (Tetric N-Ceram; Ivoclar Vivadent) blocks were made and distributed into seven groups (n = 10) at random: S: silanization alone; ALS: airborne particle abrasion (APA) and silanization; SC: APA modified with silica and silanization; SHT1: silanization and heat treatment by Er:YAG; SHT2: silanization and heat treatment performed in the furnace (100 °C, 1 min); HF: etching with HF; and HFS: etching with HF and silanization. Every ceramic specimen was cemented to a composite resin block after surface treatment. Cemented specimens were embedded into acrylic resin and were tested with the μTBS test. Data were analyzed using one-way ANOVA and Tamhane T2 tests (α = 0.05). The SHT1 group had the highest bond of strength compared to the other groups (27.46 MPa). The ALS group had the lowest strength of the groups (15.56 MPa). Between SHT2 and HFS (p = 1), the comparison of the mean µTBS values showed no significant differences. It was concluded that silane heat treatment increased the resin composite–ceramic bond strength; however, within the terms of μTBS, the Er:YAG laser treatment was more successful than other surface treatment applications.

Download Full-text

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

Operative Dentistry ◽

10.2341/11-054-l ◽

2013 ◽

Vol 38 (3) ◽

pp. E58-E66 ◽

Cited By ~ 20

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.

Download Full-text

Effect of surface treatments on repair strength, roughness and morphology in aged metal-free crowns

Brazilian Journal of Oral Sciences ◽

10.20396/bjos.v19i0.8656155 ◽

2020 ◽

Vol 19 ◽

pp. e206155

Author(s):

Yançanã Luizy Gruber ◽

Thaís Emanuelle Bakaus ◽

Bruna Fortes Bittencourt ◽

João Carlos Gomes ◽

Alessandra Reis ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Bond Strength ◽

Surface Treatment ◽

Adhesive System ◽

Surface Treatments ◽

Metal Free ◽

Diamond Bur ◽

Before And After ◽

Post Test ◽

Microshear Bond Strength

Aim: The roughness and micromorphology of various surface treatments in aged metal-free crowns and the bond strength of these crowns repaired with composite resin (CR) was evaluated in vitro. Methods: A CR core build-up was confectioned in 60 premolars and prepared for metal-free crowns. Prepared teeth were molded with the addition of silicone, and the laboratory ceromer/fiber-reinforced crowns (SR Adoro/Fibrex Lab) were fabricated. Subsequently, the crowns were cemented and artificially aged in a mechanical fatigue device (1.2 X 106 cycles), then divided into 4 groups (n = 15) according to the surface treatment: 1) phosphoric acid etching (PA); 2) PA + silane application; 3) roughening with a diamond bur + PA; and 4) sandblasting with Al2O3 + PA. After the treatments, the crowns (n = 2) were qualitatively analyzed by scanning electron microscope (SEM) and surface roughness (n = 5) was analyzed before and after the surface treatment (Ra parameter). The remaining crowns (n = 8) received standard repair with an adhesive system (Tetric N-Bond) and a nanohybrid CR (Tetric N-Ceram), and the microshear bond strength (SBS) test was performed (0.5 mm/min). Roughness and SBS data were analyzed by one- and two-way ANOVA, respectively, as well as Tukey’s post-test (α = 0.05). Results: Sandblasting with Al2O3 + PA resulted in the highest final roughness and SBS values. The lowest results were observed in the PA group, whereas the silane and diamond bur groups showed intermediate values. Conclusion: It may be concluded that indirect ceromer crowns sandblasted with aluminum oxide prior to PA etching promote increased roughness surface and bond strength values.

Download Full-text

Effect of surface treatment of prefabricated teeth on shear bond strength of orthodontic brackets

Dental Press Journal of Orthodontics ◽

10.1590/2177-6709.22.4.047-052.oar ◽

2017 ◽

Vol 22 (4) ◽

pp. 47-52 ◽

Cited By ~ 2

Author(s):

Marina Cumerlato ◽

Eduardo Martinelli de Lima ◽

Leandro Berni Osorio ◽

Eduardo Gonçalves Mota ◽

Luciane Macedo de Menezes ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Bond Strength ◽

Surface Treatment ◽

Shear Bond Strength ◽

Testing Machine ◽

Surface Treatments ◽

Orthodontic Brackets ◽

Positive Correlation ◽

Diamond Bur ◽

Group 2 ◽

Group 1

ABSTRACT Objective: The aim of this in vitro study was to evaluate and compare the effects of grinding, drilling, sandblasting, and ageing prefabricated teeth (PfT) on the shear bond strength (SBS) of orthodontic brackets, as well as the effects of surface treatments on the adhesive remnant index (ARI). Methods: One-hundred-ninety-two PfT were divided into four groups (n = 48): Group 1, no surface treatment was done; Group 2, grinding was performed with a cylindrical diamond bur; Group 3, two drillings were done with a spherical diamond bur; Group 4, sandblasting was performed with 50-µm aluminum oxide. Before the experiment, half of the samples stayed immersed in distilled water at 37oC for 90 days. Brackets were bonded with Transbond XT and shear strength tests were carried out using a universal testing machine. SBS were compared by surface treatment and by ageing with two-way ANOVA, followed by Tukey’s test. ARI scores were compared between surface treatments with Kruskal-Wallis test followed by Dunn’s test. Results: Surface treatments on PfT enhanced SBS of brackets (p< 0.01), result not observed with ageing (p= 0.45). Groups II, III, and IV showed higher SBS and greater ARI than the Group 1 (p< 0.05). SBS was greater in the groups 3 and 4 (drilling, sandblasting) than in the Group 2 (grinding) (p< 0.05). SBS and ARI showed a positive correlation (Spearman’s R2= 0.57; p< 0.05). Conclusion: Surface treatment on PfT enhanced SBS of brackets, however ageing did not show any relevance. Sandblasting and drilling showed greater SBS than grinding. There was a positive correlation between SBS and ARI.

Download Full-text

Bond Strength Assessment Between Acrylic Teeth and Acrylic Resin Repairs: Effect of Different Surface Treatments

Odovtos - International Journal of Dental Sciences ◽

10.15517/ijds.v18i2.25035 ◽

2016 ◽

Vol 18 (2) ◽

pp. 109

Author(s):

M.T. Muñoz MSc ◽

E. Reales DDS ◽

L.H.M. Prates DDS, MSc, PhD ◽

C.A.M. Volpato DDS, MSc, PhD

Keyword(s):

Bond Strength ◽

Aluminum Oxide ◽

Surface Treatment ◽

Shear Bond Strength ◽

Testing Machine ◽

Acrylic Resin ◽

Surface Treatments ◽

Strength Assessment ◽

Chemical Treatments ◽

Post Hoc

The aim of this study was to compare the shear bond strength between acrylic resin teeth and autopolymerizing acrylic resin repairs after different surface treatments. Seventy-two upper anterior acrylic resin denture teeth (MFT, Vita, Germany) were selected. Specimens were randomly assigned into six groups (n=12): G1-C, without surface treatment (control); G2-M, methylmetacrylate monomer (Jet, Clássico, Brazil) application; G3-A treatment with methylmetacrylate and metiletilcetone-based bonding agent (Vitacoll, Vita, Germany). The surface of G4-OA, G5-OAM and G6-OAA was airborne-particle abraded with aluminum oxide (Polidental, Wilson, Brazil); being repeated the treatments respectively of groups G1-C, G2-M e G3-A. All groups were then repaired with autopolymerizing acrylic resin (Jet, Clássico, Brazil). Shear bond strength test was performed using an universal testing machine (Instron 4444). Two-way ANOVA and post hoc Tukey’s analysis (p<0,05) were used for statistical comparison. The shear bond strengths of groups G4-OA, G5-OAM and G6-OAA were significantly higher (p<0,05) than that of groups G1-C, G2-M and G3-A. The shear bond strength of Group G3-A were significantly higher (p<0,05) than that of groups G1-C and G2-M. In conclution, chemical treatments in combination with bondig agents showed significant improvements in bond strength without aluminum oxide treatment. More significantly, surface treatment with aluminum oxide particles resulted in the highest bond strength values for acrylic resin teeth repaired with autopolymerizing acrylic resin.

Download Full-text

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

European Journal of Dentistry ◽

10.1055/s-0041-1735908 ◽

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.

Download Full-text

Effect of the superficial treatment in the repair of silorane-based composite aged artificially

RGO - Revista Gaúcha de Odontologia ◽

10.1590/1981-863720150003000012931 ◽

2015 ◽

Vol 63 (4) ◽

pp. 376-382

Author(s):

Chaiane Emilia DALAZEN ◽

Mario Alexandre Coelho SINHORETI ◽

Margareth COUTINHO

Keyword(s):

Bond Strength ◽

Aluminum Oxide ◽

Thermal Cycling ◽

Surface Treatments ◽

Control Group ◽

Group 4 ◽

Diamond Bur ◽

Composite Methods ◽

Group 3 ◽

Group 2

Objective: To evaluate the effects of different surface treatments, in repair bond strength of an aged silorane-based composite. Methods: Specimens were made of a silorane-based composite (P90, 3M/ESPE), aged with thermal-cycling (10,000 cycles; 5-55ºC) and randomly submitted to different surface treatments (each group n = 24): control group (no repair); group 1 (only application of P90 adhesive); group 2 (diamond bur asperization + P90 adhesive); group 3 (aluminum oxide sandblasting + P90 adhesive) and group 4 (asperization + sandblasting + P90 adhesive). Then, the specimens were repaired with the same silorane-based composite and each group randomly subdivided into 2 subgroups: stored in distilled water at 37 °C for 7 days or submitted to thermal-cycling (5,000 cycles). After aging, the tensile test was carried out. The data was submitted to 2-way analysis of variance (2-way ANOVA). Results: The repaired groups aged with oven storage for 7 days did not statistically differ (p>0.05) from the corresponding groups aged with thermal-cycling. The bond strength of the specimens was significantly influenced by the superficial treatment (p<0.01). The highest values of tensile bond strength were found in groups 3 (20.76 ± 4.51 MPa) and 4 (20.67± 3.96 MPa), regardless of aging and repair. Conclusion: The repair of silorane-based composite showed to be stable after aging, and the superficial treatment with aluminum oxide sandblasting was the most effective.

Download Full-text

Influence of surface treatment on shear bond strength of orthodontic brackets

Dental Press Journal of Orthodontics ◽

10.1590/s2176-94512013000300010 ◽

2013 ◽

Vol 18 (3) ◽

pp. 54-62 ◽

Cited By ~ 1

Author(s):

Ione Helena Vieira Portella Brunharo ◽

Daniel Jogaib Fernandes ◽

Mauro Sayão de Miranda ◽

Flavia Artese

Keyword(s):

Bond Strength ◽

Aluminum Oxide ◽

Sodium Bicarbonate ◽

Surface Treatment ◽

Hydrofluoric Acid ◽

Shear Bond Strength ◽

Resin Composite ◽

Orthodontic Brackets ◽

Treatment Methods ◽

Hybrid Resin

INTRODUCTION: The shear bond strength of orthodontic brackets bonded to micro-hybrid and micro-particulate resins under different surface treatment methods was assessed. METHODS: Two hundred and eighty test samples were divided into 28 groups (n = 10), where 140 specimens were filled with Durafill micro-particulate resin and 140 with Charisma composite. In 140 samples, a coupling agent (silane) was applied. The surface treatment methods were: Phosphoric and hydrofluoric acid etching, sodium bicarbonate and aluminum oxide blasting, stone and burs. A Universal Instron Machine was used to apply an occlusal shear force directly to the resin composite bracket surface at a speed of 0.5 mm/min. The means were compared using analysis of variance and multivariate regression to assess the interaction between composites and surface treatment methods. RESULTS: Means and standard deviations for the groups were: Sodium bicarbonate jet 11.27±2.78; burs 9.26±3.01; stone 7.95±3.67; aluminum oxide blasting 7.04±3.21; phosphoric acid 5.82±1.90; hydrofluoric acid 4.54±2.87, and without treatment 2.75±1.49. An increase of 1.94 MPa in shear bond strength was seen in Charisma groups. Silane agent application reduced the Charisma shear bond strength by 0.68 Mpa, but increased Durafill means for bicarbonate blasting (0.83), burs (0.98) and stone drilling (0.46). CONCLUSION: The sodium bicarbonate blasting, burs and stone drilling methods produced adequate shear bond strength and may be suitable for clinical use. The Charisma micro hybrid resin composite showed higher shear bond means than Durafill micro particle composite.

Download Full-text

Surface Treatments for Repair of Feldspathic, Leucite - and Lithium Disilicate-Reinforced Glass Ceramics Using Composite Resin

Brazilian Dental Journal ◽

10.1590/0103-6440201302447 ◽

2015 ◽

Vol 26 (2) ◽

pp. 152-155 ◽

Cited By ~ 22

Author(s):

Christian Alencar Neis ◽

Nadine Luísa Guimarães Albuquerque ◽

Ivo de Souza Albuquerque ◽

Erica Alves Gomes ◽

Celso Bernardo de Souza-Filho ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Bond Strength ◽

Hydrofluoric Acid ◽

Composite Resin ◽

Glass Ceramics ◽

Silica Coating ◽

Lithium Disilicate ◽

Surface Treatments ◽

Dental Ceramics ◽

Microtensile Bond Strength ◽

Diamond Bur

The aim of this study was to evaluate the efficacy of different surface conditioning methods on the microtensile bond strength of a restorative composite repair in three types of dental ceramics: lithium disilicate-reinforced, leucite-reinforced and feldspathic. Twelve blocks were sintered for each type of ceramic (n=3) and stored for 3 months in distilled water at 37 °C. The bonding surface of ceramics was abraded with 600-grit SiC paper. Surface treatments for each ceramic were: GC (control) - none; GDB - diamond bur #30 µm; GHF - hydrofluoric acid (10%); GT- tribochemical silica coating (45-μm size particles). Treatments were followed by cleaning with phosphoric acid 37% for 20 s + silane + adhesive. The composite resin was used as restorative material. After repair, samples were subjected to thermocycled ageing (10,000 cycles between 5 °C and 55 °C for 30 s). Thereafter, the samples were sectioned into 1.0 mm2 sticks and tested for microtensile bond strength with 0.5 mm/min crosshead speed. Data were compared by two-way ANOVA and Tukey's test (α=0.05). The superficial wear with diamond bur proved to be suitable for feldspathic porcelain and for leucite-reinforced glass ceramic while hydrofluoric acid-etching is indicated for repairs in lithium disilicate-reinforced ceramic; tribochemical silica coating is applicable to leucite-reinforced ceramic. Predominance of adhesive failures was observed (>85% in all groups). In conclusion, the success of surface treatments depends on the type of ceramic to be repaired.

Download Full-text