Evaluation of Repairability of Different Resin Composites After ph and Thermal Cycling

Abstract

Purpose: The aim of this study was to investigate the effect of different aging methods on repair bond strength of different types of composite resins. Materials and Methods: Thirty resin composite blocks (5mm×5mm×4mm) were built up with a nanohybrid universal resin composite and a bulk-fill resin composite according to the manufacturer’s instructions, using a silicone matrix. Indirect resin composite blocks were obtained with similar dimensions from prefabricated blocks by microtome. All the samples were air abraded with 50µm aluminum oxide particles. Specimens were then repaired with a nanohybrid resin composite using two step adhesive system. All these specimens were then randomly divided into three groups for aging process (pH cycle, thermal cycle and control group) and tested for shear bond strength. Results were recorded in MPa. Additionally fractured specimens were examined under stereomicroscope to determine the mode of failure. The data was statistically analyzed using two-way ANOVA and Bonferroni correction test (p<0,05). Results: Statistically significant effect was found on the bond strength values of the aging method and the restorative material (p<0,05). Thermal cycle applied samples showed statistically significantly lower bond strength values than both pH cycle and control group samples (p<0,05). Regardless of the aging method, the overall bond strength of Tetric N-Ceram Bulk Fill is statistically significantly higher than bond strength of Tetric CAD (p<0,05). Conclusions: Thermal cycle application is an effective aging method and air abrasion has different effects on repair bond strength of the restorative materials according to the content of the materials.

Keywords

• Air abrasion
• Bulk-fill resin composite
• Indirect resin composite
• pH cycle
• Thermal cycle

References

1. de Gee AF, Feilzer AJ, Davidson CL. True linear polymerization shrinkage of unfilled resins and composites determined with a linometer. Dent Mater 1993;9(1):11-4.
2. Feilzer AJ, De Gee AJ, Davidson CL. Setting stress in composite resin in relation to configuration of the restoration. J Dent Res 1987;66(11):1636-9.
3. Dietschi D, Scampa U, Campanile G, Holz J. Marginal adaptation and seal of direct and indirect Class II composite resin restorations: an in vitro evaluation. Quintessence Int 1995;26(2):127-38.
4. Browne RM, Tobias RS. Microbial microleakage and pulpal inflammation: a review. Endod Dent Traumatol 1986;2(5):177-83.
5. Park J, Chang J, Ferracane J, Lee IB. How should composite be layered to reduce shrinkage stress: incremental or bulk filling? Dent Mater 2008;24(11):1501-5.
6. Olmez A, Oztas N, Bodur H. The effect of flowable resin composite on microleakage and internal voids in class II composite restorations. Oper Dent 2004;29(6):713-9.
7. Campodonico CE, Tantbirojn D, Olin PS, Versluis A. Cuspal deflection and depth of cure in resin-based composite restorations filled by using bulk, incremental and transtooth-illumination techniques. J Am Dent Assoc 2011;142(10):1176-82.
8. Flury S, Hayoz S, Peutzfeldt A, Husler J, Lussi A. Depth of cure of resin composites: is the ISO 4049 method suitable for bulk fill materials? Dent Mater 2012;28(5):521-8.

9. Roggendorf MJ, Kramer N, Appelt A, Naumann M, Frankenberger R. Marginal quality of flowable 4-mm base vs. conventionally layered resin composite. J Dent 2011;39(10):643-7.
10. Ayar MK, Guven ME, Burduroglu HD, Erdemir F. Repair of aged bulk-fill composite with posterior composite: Effect of different surface treatments. J Esthet Restor Dent 2019;31(3):246-52.
11. Fugolin APP, Pfeifer CS. New Resins for Dental Composites. J Dent Res 2017;96(10):1085-91.
12. Visuttiwattanakorn P, Suputtamongkol K, Angkoonsit D, Kaewthong S, Charoonanan P. Microtensile bond strength of repaired indirect resin composite. J Adv Prosthodont 2017;9(1):38-44.
13. Hickel R, Manhart J. Longevity of restorations in posterior teeth and reasons for failure. J Adhes Dent 2001;3(1):45-64.
14. Touati B. The evolution of aesthetic restorative materials for inlays and onlays: a review. Pract Periodontics Aesthet Dent 1996;8(7):657-66; quiz 68.
15. D'Arcangelo C, Vanini L. Effect of three surface treatments on the adhesive properties of indirect composite restorations. J Adhes Dent 2007;9(3):319-26.
16. Passos SP, Ozcan M, Vanderlei AD, Leite FP, Kimpara ET, Bottino MA. Bond strength durability of direct and indirect composite systems following surface conditioning for repair. J Adhes Dent 2007;9(5):443-7.
17. Kimyai S, Oskoee SS, Mohammadi N, Rikhtegaran S, Bahari M, Oskoee PA, et al. Effect of different mechanical and chemical surface treatments on the repaired bond strength of an indirect composite resin. Lasers Med Sci 2015;30(2):653-9.
18. Kimyai S, Mohammadi N, Navimipour EJ, Rikhtegaran S. Comparison of the effect of three mechanical surface treatments on the repair bond strength of a laboratory composite. Photomed Laser Surg 2010;28 Suppl 2:S25-30.
19. Loomans B, Ozcan M. Intraoral Repair of Direct and Indirect Restorations: Procedures and Guidelines. Oper Dent 2016;41(S7):S68-S78.
20. Hickel R, Peschke A, Tyas M, Mjör I, Bayne S, Peters M, et al. FDI World Dental Federation: clinical criteria for the evaluation of direct and indirect restorations-update and clinical examples. Clin Oral Investig 2010;14(4):349-66.
21. Loomans BA, Cardoso MV, Roeters FJ, et al. Is there one optimal repair technique for all composites? Dent Mater 2011;27(7):701-9.
22. Ozcan M, Corazza PH, Marocho SM, Barbosa SH, Bottino MA. Repair bond strength of microhybrid, nanohybrid and nanofilled resin composites: effect of substrate resin type, surface conditioning and ageing. Clin Oral Investig 2013;17(7):1751-8.
23. Loomans BA, Cardoso MV, Roeters FJ, Opdam NJ, De Munck J, Huysmans MC, et al. Effect of different surface treatment techniques on the repair strength of indirect composites. J Dent 2017;59:18-25.
24. Cesar PF, Meyer Faara PM, Miwa Caldart R, Gastaldoni Jaeger R, da Cunha Ribeiro F. Tensile bond strength of composite repairs on Artglass using different surface treatments. Am J Dent 2001;14(6):373-7.
25. Hummel SK, Marker V, Pace L, Goldfogle M. Surface treatment of indirect resin composite surfaces before cementation. J Prosthet Dent 1997;77(6):568-72.
26. Jafarzadeh Kashi TS, Erfan M, Rakhshan V, Aghabaigi N, Tabatabaei FS. An in vitro assessment of the effects of three surface treatments on repair bond strength of aged composites. Oper Dent 2011;36(6):608-17.
27. Brendeke J, Ozcan M. Effect of physicochemical aging conditions on the composite-composite repair bond strength. J Adhes Dent 2007;9(4):399-406.
28. Rinastiti M, Ozcan M, Siswomihardjo W, Busscher HJ. Effects of surface conditioning on repair bond strengths of non-aged and aged microhybrid, nanohybrid, and nanofilled composite resins. Clin Oral Investig 2011;15(5):625-33.
29. Ozcan M, Barbosa SH, Melo RM, Galhano GA, Bottino MA. Effect of surface conditioning methods on the microtensile bond strength of resin composite to composite after aging conditions. Dent Mater 2007;23(10):1276-82.
30. Ahmadizenouz G, Esmaeili B, Taghvaei A, Jamali Z, Jafari T, Amiri Daneshvar F, et al. Effect of different surface treatments on the shear bond strength of nanofilled composite repairs. J Dent Res Dent Clin Dent Prospects 2016;10(1):9-16.
31. Costa AR, Correr-Sobrinho L, Ambrosano GM, Sinhoreti MA, Borges GA, Platt JA, et al. Dentin bond strength of a fluoride-releasing adhesive system submitted to pH-cycling. Braz Dent J 2014;25(6):472-8.
32. Deng D, Yang H, Guo J, Chen X, Zhang W, Huang C. Effects of different artificial ageing methods on the degradation of adhesive-dentine interfaces. J Dent 2014;42(12):1577-85.
33. Peris AR, Mitsui FH, Lobo MM, Bedran-russo AK, Marchi GM. Adhesive systems and secondary caries formation: Assessment of dentin bond strength, caries lesions depth and fluoride release. Dent Mater 2007;23(3):308-16.
34. Vieira AE, Delbem AC, Sassaki KT, Rodrigues E, Cury JA, Cunha RF. Fluoride dose response in pH-cycling models using bovine enamel. Caries Res 2005;39(6):514-20.
35. Koc-Vural U, Kerimova L, Baltacioglu IH, Kiremitci A. Bond strength of dental nanocomposites repaired with a bulkfill composite. J Clin Exp Dent 2017;9(3):e437-e42.
36. Dall'oca S, Papacchini F, Radovic I, Polimeni A, Ferrari M. Repair potential of a laboratory-processed nano-hybrid resin composite. J Oral Sci 2008;50(4):403-12.
37. 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.
38. Pontes AP, Oshima HM, Pacheco JF, Martins JL, Shinkai RS. Shear bond strength of direct composite repairs in indirect composite systems. Gen Dent 2005;53(5):343-7.
39. Souza EM, Francischone CE, Powers JM, Rached RN, Vieira S. Effect of different surface treatments on the repair bond strength of indirect composites. Am J Dent 2008;21(2):93-6.
40. Ozcan M, Alander P, Vallittu PK, Huysmans MC, Kalk W. Effect of three surface conditioning methods to improve bond strength of particulate filler resin composites. J Mater Sci Mater Med 2005;16(1):21-7.
41. Swift EJ, Jr., LeValley BD, Boyer DB. Evaluation of new methods for composite repair. Dent Mater 1992;8(6):362-5.
42. Oztas N, Alacam A, Bardakcy Y. The effect of air abrasion with two new bonding agents on composite repair. Oper Dent 2003;28(2):149-54.
43. Consani RL, Marinho T, Bacchi A, Caldas RA, Feitosa VP, Pfeifer CS. Repair Strength in Simulated Restorations of Methacrylate- or Silorane-Based Composite Resins. Braz Dent J 2016;27(4):463-7.
44. Kupiec KA, Barkmeier WW. Laboratory evaluation of surface treatments for composite repair. Oper Dent 1996;21(2):59-62.
45. Puckett AD, Holder R, O'Hara JW. Strength of posterior composite repairs using different composite/bonding agent combinations. Oper Dent 1991;16(4):136-40.
46. Turner CW, Meiers JC. Repair of an aged, contaminated indirect composite resin with a direct, visible-light-cured composite resin. Oper Dent 1993;18(5):187-94.