Effect of different surface pretreatment methods on repair bond strength of resin composite subjected to pH-cycling

Year 2022, Volume: 5 Issue: 5, 1491 - 1498, 25.09.2022

Fetiye Akın , Gül Dinç Ata

https://doi.org/10.32322/jhsm.1133747

Abstract

Objectives: The aim of this study was to evaluate the effect of two different repair methods (Er:YAG laser and bur) with or without silane application on the microtensile bond strength of a nanohybrid resin composite aged with two different aging methods (pH cycling and thermocycling).
Material and Method: Resin composite blocks (Clearfil Majesty Esthetic, Kuraray, Japan) were randomly assigned into two groups for aging process: (a) pH cycling (b) thermocycling (5,000 cycles). After aging, the blocks were assigned to one of the following repair procedures: (1) Er:YAG laser (LightWalker STE-E, Fotona Medical Lasers, Ljubljana, Slovenia) (2) Er:YAG laser+silane (3) bur (4) bur+silane and (5) no-pretreatment group and (6) Cohesive control (cohesive strength of the resin). Resin composite (Clearfil Majesty Esthetic) was bonded to the conditioned substrates incrementally and light polymerized. Repaired samples were thermocycled (5.000 cycles). The microtensile bonding test was performed. The data were analyzed using Scheirer-Ray-Hare, Kruskal-Wallis Mann-Whitney U tests, Chi-square and Z tests with Bonferroni correction (p=0.05).
Results: No statistically significant difference was found between the aging methods applied to filling material (p=0.821) and the interaction of applied surface treatments and aging (p=0.289). All repair procedures achieved bond strength values higher than the no-pretreatment group but they did not reach the resin composite’s cohesive bond strength. Failure modes distribution was found statistically different according to repair procedure and also aging methods (p<0.05).
Conclusion: The bond strengths of the resin composites were similar to those of applied thermal cycling and the pH cycling model with no difference between the different repair methods.

Keywords

Aging, dental restoration repair, lasers, pH, silanes

Supporting Institution

None

Project Number

None

Thanks

None

References

• Curtis AR, Shortall AC, Marquis PM, Palin WM. Water uptake and strength characteristics of a nanofilled resin-based composite. J Dent 2008; 36: 186-93.
• Mitra SB, Wu D, Holmes BN. An application of nanotechnology in advanced dental materials. J Am Dent Assoc 2003; 134: 1382-90.
• Mjor IA. Repair versus replacement of failed restorations. Int Dent J 1993; 43: 466-72.
• Moncada G, Martin J, Fernández E, Hempel MC, Mjör IA, Gordan VV. Sealing, refurbishment and repair of Class I and Class II defective restorations: a three-year clinical trial. J Am Dent Assoc 2009; 140: 425-32.
• Vankerckhoven H, Lambrechts P, van Beylen M, Davidson CL, Vanherle G. Unreacted methacrylate groups on the surfaces of composite resins. J Dent Res 1982; 61: 791-5.
• Rathke A, Tymina Y, Haller B. Effect of different surface treatments on the composite-composite repair bond strength. Clin Oral Investig 2009; 13: 317-23.
• Ahmadizenouz G, Esmaeili B, Taghvaei A, 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: 9-16.
• Brosh T, Pilo R, Bichacho N, Blutstein R. Effect of combinations of surface treatments and bonding agents on the bond strength of repaired composites. J Prosthet Dent 1997; 77: 122-6.
• Celik EU, Ergucu Z, Turkun LS, Ercan UK. Tensile bond strength of an aged resin composite repaired with different protocols. J Adhes Dent 2011; 13: 359-66.
• Etemadi A, Shahabi S, Chiniforush N, Pordel E, Azarbayejani Z, Heidari S. Scanning Electron Microscope (SEM) Evaluation of Composite Surface Irradiated by Different Powers of Er:YAG Laser. J Lasers Med Sci 2015; 6: 80-4.
• Loomans BA, Cardoso MV, Roeters FJ, et al. Is there one optimal repair technique for all composites? Dent Mater 2011; 27: 701-9.
• Ozel Bektas O, Eren D, Herguner Siso S, Akin GE. Effect of thermocycling on the bond strength of composite resin to bur and laser treated composite resin. Lasers Med Sci 2012; 27: 723-8.
• 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: 442-51.
• Yesilyurt C, Kusgoz A, Bayram M, Ulker M. Initial repair bond strength of a nano-filled hybrid resin: effect of surface treatments and bonding agents. J Esthet Restor Dent 2009; 21: 251-60.
• Brendeke J, Ozcan M. Effect of physicochemical aging conditions on the composite-composite repair bond strength. J Adhes Dent 2007; 9: 399-406.
• 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: 373-7.
• Frankenberger R, Krämer N, Ebert J, et al. Fatigue behavior of the resin-resin bond of partially replaced resin-based composite restorations. Am J Dent 2003; 16: 17-22.
• 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: 1276-82.
• 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: 1751-8.
• Ozcan M, Pekkan G. Effect of different adhesion strategies on bond strength of resin composite to composite-dentin complex. Oper Dent 2013; 38: 63-72.
• Papacchini F, Toledano M, Monticelli F, et al. Hydrolytic stability of composite repair bond. Eur J Oral Sci 2007; 115: 417-24.
• Oztas N, Alacam A, Bardakcy Y. The effect of air abrasion with two new bonding agents on composite repair. Oper Dent 2003; 28: 149-54.
• Papacchini F, Dall'Oca S, Chieffi N, et al. Composite-to-composite microtensile bond strength in the repair of a microfilled hybrid resin: effect of surface treatment and oxygen inhibition. J Adhes Dent 2007; 9: 25-31.
• Duran I, Ural C, Yilmaz B, Tatar N. Effects of Er:YAG Laser Pretreatment with Different Energy Levels on Bond Strength of Repairing Composite Materials. Photomed Laser Surg 2015; 33: 320-5.
• Rossato DM, Bandéca MC, Saade EG, Lizarelli RFZ, Bagnato VS, Saad JRC. Influence of Er: YAG laser on surface treatment of aged composite resin to repair restoration. Laser physics 2009; 19: 2144-9.
• Baur V, Ilie N. Repair of dental resin-based composites. Clin Oral Investig 2013; 17: 601-8.
• 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: 625-33.
• Hashimoto M, Ohno H, Kaga M, Endo K, Sano H, Oguchi H. In vivo degradation of resin-dentin bonds in humans over 1 to 3 years. J Dent Res 2000; 79: 1385-91.
• Stookey GK, Featherstone JD, Rapozo-Hilo M, et al. The Featherstone laboratory pH cycling model: a prospective, multi-site validation exercise. Am J Dent 2011; 24: 322-8.
• 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: 514-20.
• Costa AR, Correr-Sobrinho L, Ambrosano GM, et al. Dentin bond strength of a fluoride-releasing adhesive system submitted to pH-cycling. Braz Dent J 2014; 25: 472-8.
• Ortengren U, Andersson F, Elgh U, Terselius B, Karlsson S. Influence of pH and storage time on the sorption and solubility behaviour of three composite resin materials. J Dent 2001; 29: 35-41.
• Eliasson ST, Tibballs J, Dahl JE. Effect of different surface treatments and adhesives on repair bond strength of resin composites after one and 12 months of storage using an improved microtensile test method. Oper Dent 2014; 39: E206-16.
• Nilsson E, Alaeddin S, Karlsson S, Milleding P, Wennerberg A. Factors affecting the shear bond strength of bonded composite inlays. International Journal of Prosthodontics 2000; 13: 53-8.
• Batista GR, Kamozaki MB, Gutierrez NC, Caneppele TM, Rocha Gomes Torres C. Effects of Different Surface Treatments on Composite Repairs. J Adhes Dent 2015; 17: 421-6.
• Ferracane JL, Berge HX, Condon JR. In vitro aging of dental composites in water--effect of degree of conversion, filler volume, and filler/matrix coupling. J Biomed Mater Res 1998; 42: 465-72.
• 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: 21-7.
• Valinoti AC, Neves BG, da Silva EM, Maia LC. Surface degradation of composite resins by acidic medicines and pH-cycling. J Appl Oral Sci 2008; 16: 257-65.
• Bektas ÖÖ, Eren D, Siso SH, Akin GE. Effect of thermocycling on the bond strength of composite resin to bur and laser treated composite resin. Lasers in medical science 2012; 27: 723-8.