Effect of Different Surface Treatments and Repair Materials on Shear Bond Strength of Bulk-Fill Resin Composite

Alyaa A. Soliman, R. Mehesen, Ashraf I Ali
{"title":"Effect of Different Surface Treatments and Repair Materials on Shear Bond Strength of Bulk-Fill Resin Composite","authors":"Alyaa A. Soliman, R. Mehesen, Ashraf I Ali","doi":"10.21608/mjd.2022.259778","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":": Objective: To evaluate the effect of different surface treatments on shear bond strength (SBS) between bulk-fill resin composite (BFRC) and bulk-fill flowable resin composite (BFFRC) or conventional flowable resin composite (CFRC). Materials and Methods: Sixteen blocks were prepared from Tetric N-Ceram BFRC, aged by thermo-cycling, and then stored in artificial saliva for 6 months. The blocks were divided into 4 groups (n=4) according to the surface treatment; Group1: roughened by coarse discs, Group 2: roughened by coarse discs and silanization, Group 3: roughened by air abrasion, and Group 4: roughened by air abrasion and silanization. Each group was subdivided into 2 subgroups (n=2) according to the used repair restorative system; subgroup A repaired with Tetric N-Bond universal adhesive/ Tetric N-Flow BFRC, and subgroup B was repaired with Prime& Bond universal adhesive /Spectra ST flow CFRC. The repair RC was placed on the RC blocks using tygon tubes and cured. The specimens were tested for SBS using a universal testing machine. Results: Regarding the effect of different surface treatments for both repair restorative systems, there was a significant difference (P<0.001). Regarding the effect of silane, there was no significant difference (p= 1.00). There was no significant difference between repair with CFRC or BFFRC (P =0.679). Conclusions: Surface treatment by air abrasion followed by silane and universal adhesive can be attempted clinically for the repair of aged BF restoration. The aged BFRC could be effectively repaired with the same bulk-fill or conventional RC if proper repair protocol was used.","PeriodicalId":308616,"journal":{"name":"Mansoura Journal of Dentistry","volume":"25 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2022-09-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Mansoura Journal of Dentistry","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.21608/mjd.2022.259778","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

: Objective: To evaluate the effect of different surface treatments on shear bond strength (SBS) between bulk-fill resin composite (BFRC) and bulk-fill flowable resin composite (BFFRC) or conventional flowable resin composite (CFRC). Materials and Methods: Sixteen blocks were prepared from Tetric N-Ceram BFRC, aged by thermo-cycling, and then stored in artificial saliva for 6 months. The blocks were divided into 4 groups (n=4) according to the surface treatment; Group1: roughened by coarse discs, Group 2: roughened by coarse discs and silanization, Group 3: roughened by air abrasion, and Group 4: roughened by air abrasion and silanization. Each group was subdivided into 2 subgroups (n=2) according to the used repair restorative system; subgroup A repaired with Tetric N-Bond universal adhesive/ Tetric N-Flow BFRC, and subgroup B was repaired with Prime& Bond universal adhesive /Spectra ST flow CFRC. The repair RC was placed on the RC blocks using tygon tubes and cured. The specimens were tested for SBS using a universal testing machine. Results: Regarding the effect of different surface treatments for both repair restorative systems, there was a significant difference (P<0.001). Regarding the effect of silane, there was no significant difference (p= 1.00). There was no significant difference between repair with CFRC or BFFRC (P =0.679). Conclusions: Surface treatment by air abrasion followed by silane and universal adhesive can be attempted clinically for the repair of aged BF restoration. The aged BFRC could be effectively repaired with the same bulk-fill or conventional RC if proper repair protocol was used.
不同表面处理及修补材料对大块填充树脂复合材料剪切粘结强度的影响
目的:评价不同表面处理对大块填充型树脂复合材料(BFRC)与大块填充型可流动型树脂复合材料(BFFRC)或常规可流动型树脂复合材料(CFRC)间剪切结合强度(SBS)的影响。材料与方法:用N-Ceram BFRC制备16块,经热循环老化,在人工唾液中保存6个月。块体按表面处理情况分为4组(n=4);组1:粗盘粗化,组2:粗盘粗化加硅化,组3:空气研磨粗化,组4:空气研磨加硅化粗化。每组按使用的修复修复系统再分为2个亚组(n=2);A亚组采用Tetric N-Bond万能胶/ Tetric N-Flow BFRC修复,B亚组采用prime&bond万能胶/Spectra ST flow CFRC修复。修复RC放置在钢筋混凝土块上使用钢筋混凝土管和固化。用万能试验机对试样进行SBS测试。结果:两种修复修复系统不同表面处理的效果差异有统计学意义(P<0.001)。对于硅烷的影响,差异无统计学意义(p= 1.00)。CFRC与BFFRC的修复效果无显著性差异(P =0.679)。结论:空气磨蚀表面处理后再应用硅烷和万能粘接剂进行BF老化修复在临床上是可行的。如果采用适当的修复方案,采用相同的砌块充填或常规RC均可有效修复老化的BFRC。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信