Comparison of Bond Strength of Bulkfill and Conventional Composites as Composite Repair Materials

Year 2023, Volume: 12 Issue: 2, 258 - 265, 13.05.2023

Burak Dayı Elif Nihan Küçükyıldız

https://doi.org/10.54617/adoklinikbilimler.1203271

Abstract

Aim: The aim of this in vitro study was to comparatively evaluate the micro-tensile bond strength and failure type at fracture surfaces of microhybrid, submicrohybrid and bulkfill composite as a composite repair material.
Materials and Method: Cylindrical (4x4 mm) samples were prepared from supranano composite resin (Estelite Sigma Quick) in standard teflon molds and exposed to 3.000 thermal cycles. One surface of the samples was abrased and restored with microhybrid composite (Arabesk), submicrohybrid composite (Charisma Smart) and bulkfill composite (Filtek Bulk-Fill Posterior) and 4 mm x8 mm blocks were formed. Rectangular prism-shaped bars of 1x1x8 mm3 were obtained from the composite blocks with a cutting device, 12 for each group, and their bond strength was tested with a micro-tensile test device. In addition, after the test, the fracture surface of each sample was examined under a stereomicroscope. Repair bond strength data were compared with one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) and multiple comparisons were assessed with the Tukey HSD test. All p<0.05 values were considered statistically significant.
Results: While the bulkfill composite group showed the highest average micro-tensile repair bond strength value, the lowest average value was seen in the microhybrid composite group (p<0.05). The percentage of cohesive failure was determined in parallel with the repair bond strength values (Bulkfill>Submicrohybrid>Microhybrid).
Conclusion: In the repair of supranano composite resin, better bonding may be achieved with bulkfill composite compared to submicrohybrid and microhybrid composite.

Keywords

Adhesion, Inorganic filler, Minimally invasive dentistry, Repair material

Bulkfill ve Geleneksel Kompozitlerin Kompozit Tamir Materyali Olarak Bağlanma Dayanımlarının Karşılaştırılması

Abstract

Amaç: Bu in vitro çalışmanın amacı mikrohibrit, submikrohibrit ve bulkfill kompozitin kompozit tamir materyali olarak mikro gerilme bağlanma dayanımının ve kırılma yüzeylerindeki başarısızlık tipinin karşılaştırmalı olarak değerlendirilmesidir.
Gereç ve Yöntem: Standart Teflon kalıplarda supranano kompozit rezinden (Estelite Sigma Quick) silindirik (4x4 mm) örnekler hazırlandı ve 3.000 termal döngüye maruz bırakıldı. Örneklerin bir yüzeyi abraze hale getirilerek mikrohibrit kompozit (Arabesk), submikrohibrit kompozit (Charisma Smart) ve bulkfill kompozit (Filtek Bulk-Fill Posterior) ile restore edilip 4x8 mm boyutlarında bloklar oluşturuldu. Kompozit bloklardan kesme cihazı ile her grup için 12 adet olmak üzere 1x1x8 mm3 ölçülerinde dikdörtgenler prizması şeklinde çubuklar elde edilerek mikro gerilim test cihazı ile bağlanma dayanımları test edildi. Ayrıca test sonrası her örneğin kopma yüzeyi stereo mikroskopta incelendi. Tamir bağlanma dayanımı verileri tek yönlü varyans analizi (ANOVA) ile karşılaştırıldı ve çoklu karşılaştırmalar Tukey HSD testi ile değerlendirildi. Bütün p<0.05 değerleri istatistiksel olarak anlamlı kabul edildi.
Bulgular: Bulkfill kompozit grubu en yüksek ortalama mikro gerilim tamir bağlanma dayanımı değeri gösterirken en düşük ortalama değer mikrohibrit kompozit grubunda görüldü (p<0.05). Koheziv tip başarısızlık yüzdesi ise tamir bağlanma dayanımı değerlerine paralel şekilde tespit edildi (Bulkfill> Submikrohibrit>Mikrohibrit).
Sonuç: Supranano kompozit rezinin tamirinde submikrohibrit ve mikrohibrit kompozite göre bulkfill kompozit ile daha iyi bir bağlanma sağlanabilir.

Keywords

Adezyon, İnorganik doldurucu, Minimal invaziv dişhekimliği, Tamir materyali

References

• Chandrasekhar V, Rudrapati L, Badami V, Tummala M. Incremental techniques in direct composite restoration. J Conserv Dent 2017;20:386-91.
• Akova T, Ozkomur A, Uysal H. Effect of food-simulating liquids on the mechanical properties of provisional restorative materials. Dent Mater 2006;22:1130-4.
• Sarkar NK. Internal corrosion in dental composite wear. J Biomed Mater Res 2000;53:371-80.
• Rinastiti M, Özcan M, Siswomihardjo W, Busscher HJ. Effects of surface conditioning on repair bond strengths of non-aged and aged microhybrid, nanohybrid, and nanofilled composite resins. Clinic Oral Investig 2011;15:625-33.
• Manhart J, Chen H, Hamm G, Hickel R. Review of the clinical survival of direct and indirect restorations in posterior teeth of the permanent dentition. Oper Dent 2004;29:481-508.
• Forss H, Widström E. Reasons for restorative therapy and the longevity of restorations in adults. Acta Odontol Scand 2004;62:82-6.
• Opdam NJM, Bronkhorst EM, Loomans BAC, Huysmans MCDJNM. 12-year survival of composite vs. amalgam restorations. J Dent Res 2010; 89:1063-7.
• Blum IR, Jagger DC, Wilson HHF. Defective dental restorations: to repair or not to repair? Part 1: direct composite restorations. Dent Update 2011;38:78-84.
• Hickel R, Roulet JF, Bayne S, Heintze SD, Mjör IA, Peters M, et al. Recommendations for conducting controlled clinical studies of dental restorative materials. Clin Oral Investig 2007;11:5-33.
• Perdigão J, Kose C, Mena-Serrano AP, De Paula EA, Tay LY, Reis A, et al. A new universal simplified adhesive: 18-month clinical evaluation. Oper Dent 2014;39:113-27.
• Cuevas-Suárez CE, Nakanishi L, Isolan CP, Ribeiro JS, Moreira AG, Piva E. Repair bond strength of bulk-fill resin composite: Effect of different adhesive protocols. Dent Mater J 2020;39:236-41.
• Fornazari IA, Brum RT, Rached RN, de Souza EM. Reliability and correlation between microshear and microtensile bond strength tests of composite repairs. J Mech Behav Biomed Mater 2020;103:103607.
• Ning K, Bronkhorst E, Bremers A, Bronkhorst H, van der Meer H, Yang F, et al. Wear behavior of a microhybrid composite vs. a nanocomposite in the treatment of severe tooth wear patients: A 5-year clinical study. Dent Mater 2021;37:1819-27.
• Savic Stankovic T, Karadzic B, Komlenic V, Static J, Petrovic V, Ilic J, et al. Effects of whitening gels on color and surface properties of a microhybrid and nanohybrid composite. Dental Mater J 2021;40:1380-7.
• tokuyamaturkiye.com [İnternet]. Erişim tarihi 08.10.2022. Ulaşılabilir linki: https://tokuyamaturkiye.com/upload/teknik/ESTELITE-SIGMA-QUICK.pdf
• Kim RJ, Kim YJ, Choi NS, Lee IB. Polymerization shrinkage, modulus, and shrinkage stress related to tooth-restoration interfacial debonding in bulk-fill composites. J Dent 2015;43:430-9.
• Pereira R, Giorgi MCC, Lins RBE, Theobaldo JD, Lima DANL, Marchi GM , et al. Physical and photoelastic properties of bulk-fill and conventional composites. Clin Cosmet Investig Dent 2018;12:287-96.
• Mandava J, Vegesna DP, Ravi R, Boddeda MR, Uppalapati LL, Ghazanfaruddin MD. Microtensile bond strength of bulk-fill restorative composites to dentin. J Clin Exp Dent 2017;9:1023-8.
• Van Meerbeek B, Peumans M, Poitevin A, Mine A, Van Ende A, De Munck J. Relationship between bond strength tests and clinical outcomes. Dent Mater 2010;26:e100-21.
• Buchner A, Erdfelder E, Faul F, Lang A. G* Power 3.1 manual. Düsseldorf, Germany: Heinrich-Heine-Universitat Dusseldorf. 2017.
• Estay J, Martin J, Viera V, Valdivieso J, Bersezio C, Vildosola P, et al. 12 Years of Repair of Amalgam and Composite Resins: A Clinical Study. Oper Dent 2018;43:12-21.
• Akgül S, Kedici Alp C, Bala O. Repair potential of a bulk-fill resin composite: Effect of different surface-treatment protocols. Eur J Oral Sci 2021;129:e12814.
• Zakavi F, Johar N, Moalemnia M, Rakhshan V. Effects of at-home and in-office bleaching and three composite types (hybrid, microhybrid, and nanofilled) on repair shear bond strength of aged composites: A preliminary study. Dent Res J (Isfahan) 2021;18:61.
• Ozer S, Sen Tunc E, Gonulol N. Bond strengths of silorane- and methacrylate-based composites to various underlying materials. Biomed Res Int 2014;2014:782090.
• Mok ZH, Proctor G, Thanou M. Emerging nanomaterials for dental treatments. Emerg Top Life Sci 2020;4:613-25.
• Spyrou M, Koliniotou Koumpia E, Kouros P, Koulaouzidou E, Dionysopoulos P. The reparability of contemporary composite resins. Eur J Dent 2014;8:353-9.
• Karatas O, Bayindir YZ. A comparison of dentin bond strength and degree of polymerization of bulk-fill and methacrylate-based flowable composites. J Conserv Dent 2018;21:285-9.
• Medeiros TC, Lima MR, Bessa SCF, Araújo DFG, Galvão MR. Repair bond strength of bulk fill composites after different adhesion protocols. J Clin Exp Dent 2019;11:e1000-5.