Top

Published in:

Open Access 01-10-2011 | Original Article

Effects of surface conditioning on repair bond strengths of non-aged and aged microhybrid, nanohybrid, and nanofilled composite resins

Authors: Margareta Rinastiti, Mutlu Özcan, Widowati Siswomihardjo, Henk J. Busscher

Published in: Clinical Oral Investigations | Issue 5/2011

Abstract

This study evaluates effects of aging on repair bond strengths of microhybrid, nanohybrid, and nanofilled composite resins and characterizes the interacting surfaces after aging. Disk-shaped composite specimens were assigned to one of three aging conditions: (1) thermocycling (5,000×, 5–55°C), (2) storage in water at 37°C for 6 months, or (3) immersion in citric acid at 37°C, pH 3 for 1 week; a non-aged group acted as the control. Two surface conditionings were selected: intermediate adhesive resin application (IAR-application) and chairside silica coating followed by silanization and its specific IAR-application (SC-application). Composite resins, of the same kind as their substrate, were adhered onto the substrates, and repair shear bond strengths were determined, followed by failure type evaluation. Filler particle exposure was determined by X-ray photoelectron spectroscopy and surface roughness analyzed using scanning electron and atomic force microscopy. Surface roughness increased in all composite resins after aging, but filler particle exposure at the surface only increased after thermocycling and citric acid immersion. Composite resin type, surface conditioning, and aging method significantly influenced the repair bond strengths (p < 0.05, three-way analysis of variance) with the least severe effects of water storage. Repair bond strengths in aged composite resins after IAR-application were always lower in non-aged ones, while SC-application led to higher bond strengths than IAR-application after thermocycling and water storage. In addition, SC-application led to more cohesive failures than after IAR-application, regardless the aging method.

Tyas MJ, Anusavice KJ, Frencken JE, Mount GJ (2000) Minimal intervention dentistry—a review. FDI Commission Project 1-97. Int Dent J 50:1–12PubMedCrossRef

White JM, Eakle WS (2000) Rationale and treatment approach in minimally invasive dentistry. J Am Dent Assoc 131(Suppl):13S–19SPubMed

Murdoch-Kinch MA, McLean ME (2003) Minimally invasive dentistry. J Am Dent Assoc 134:87–95PubMed

Akova T, Ozkomur A, Uysal H (2006) Effect of food-simulating liquids on the mechanical properties of provisional restorative materials. J Dent 22:1130–1134

Sarkar NK (2000) Internal corrosion in dental composite wear: its significance and simulation. J Biomed Mater Res B Appl Biomater 53:371–380CrossRef

Mjor IA (1981) Placement and replacement of restorations. Oper Dent 6:49–54

Roulet JF (1988) The problems associated with substituting composite resins for amalgam: a status report on posterior composites. J Dent 16:101–113PubMedCrossRef

Swift EJ (1987) Wear of composite resins in permanent posterior teeth. J Am Dent Assoc 115:584–588PubMed

Lewis G, Johnson W, Martin W, Canerdy A, Claburn C, Collier M (1998) Shear bond strength of immediately repaired light-cured composite resin restorations. Oper Dent 23:121–127PubMed

10.

Mjor IA, Moorhead JE, Dahl JE (1999) Selection of restorative materials in permanent teeth in general dental practice. Acta Odontol Scand 57:257–262PubMedCrossRef

11.

Papacchini F, DallÓca S, Chieffi N, Goracci C, Sadek FT, Suh BI, Tay FR, Ferrari M (2007) Composite-to-composite microtensile bond strength in the repair of a microfilled hybrid resin: effect of surface treatment and oxygen inhibition. J Adhes Dent 9:25–31PubMed

12.

Bouschlicher MR, Reindhardt JW, Vargas MA (1997) Surface treatment techniques for resin composite repair. Am J Dent 10:279–283PubMed

13.

Rosales-Leal JI, Osorio R, Holgadi-Terriza JA, Cabrrerizo-Vilches MA, Toledano M (2001) Dentin wetting by four adhesive systems. Dent Mater 17:526–532PubMedCrossRef

14.

Chiba K, Hosoda H, Fusayama T (1989) The addition of an adhesive composite resin to the same material: bond strength and clinical techniques. J Prosthet Dent 61:669–675PubMedCrossRef

15.

Özcan M, Barbosa S, Melo R, Galhano G, Bottino M (2007) Effect of surface conditioning methods on the microtensile bond strength of resin composite to composite after aging conditions. Dent Mater 23:1276–1282PubMedCrossRef

16.

Shahdad SA, Kennedy JG (1998) Bond strength of repaired anterior composite resins: an in vitro study. J Dent 26:685–694PubMedCrossRef

17.

Turner CW, Meiers JC (1993) Repair of an aged, contaminated indirect composite resin with a direct, visible-light-cured composite resin. Oper Dent 18:187–194PubMed

18.

Swift EJ, Le Valley BD, Boyer DB (1992) Evaluation of new methods for composite repair. Dent Mater 8:362–365PubMedCrossRef

19.

Cesar P, Meyer Faara P, Miwa Caldart R, Gastaldoni Jaeger R, da Cunha RF (2001) Tensile bond strength of composite repairs on Artglass using different surface treatments. Am J Dent 14:373–377PubMed

20.

Frankenberger R, Kramer N, Sindel J (2000) Repair strength of etched vs silica-coated metal-ceramic and all-ceramic restorations. Oper Dent 25:209–215PubMed

21.

Yap AUJ, Sau CW, Lye KW (1999) Effects of aging on repair bond strengths of a polyacid-modified composite resin. Oper Dent 24:371–376PubMed

22.

Hakimeh S, Vaidyanathan J, Houpt ML, Vaidyanathan TK, Von Hagen S (2000) Microleakage of compomer class V restorations: effect of load cycling, thermal cycling, and cavity shape differences. J Prosthet Dent 83:194–203PubMedCrossRef

23.

Kawano F, Ohguri T, Ichikawa T, Matsumoto N (2001) Influence of thermal cycles in water on flexural strength of laboratory-processed composite resin. J Oral Rehabil 28:703–707PubMedCrossRef

24.

Cattani-Lorente M, Dupuis V, Moya F, Payan J, Meyer JM (1999) Comparative study of the physical properties of a polyacid-modified composite resin and a resin-modified glass ionomer cement. Dent Mater 15:21–32PubMedCrossRef

25.

Soderholm KJ, Zigan M, Ragan M, Fischlschweiger W, Bergman M (1984) Hydrolytic degradation of dental composites. J Dent Res 63:1248–1254PubMedCrossRef

26.

Crim GA, Garcia-Godoy F (1987) Microleakage: the effect of storage and cycling duration. J Prosthet Dent 57:574–576PubMedCrossRef

27.

Brentel AS, Ozcan M, Valandro LF, Alarca LG, Amaral R, Bottino MA (2007) Microtensile bond strength of a resin cement to feldpathic ceramic after different etching and silanization regimens in dry and aged conditions. Dent Mater 23:1323–1331PubMedCrossRef

28.

Padipatvuthikul P, Mair LH (2007) Bonding of composite to water aged composite with surface treatments. Dent Mater 23:519–525PubMedCrossRef

29.

Rasmussen S (1996) Analysis of dental shear bond strength tests, shear or tensile. Int J Adhesion and Adhesives 16:147–154CrossRef

30.

Della BA, Anusavice K, Shen C (2000) Microtensile strength of composite bonded to hot-pressed ceramics. J Adhes Dent 2:305–313

31.

Rinastiti M, Ozcan M, Siswomihardjo W, Busscher HJ (2009) Immediate repair bond strengths of microhybrid, nanohybrid and nanofilled composites after different surface treatments. J Dent 38:29–38CrossRef

32.

Örtengren U, Andersson F, Elgh U, Terselius B, Karlsson S (2001) Influence of pH and storage time on the sorption and solubility behaviour of three composite resin materials. J Dent 29:35–41PubMedCrossRef

33.

McCabe JF, Rusby S (2004) Water absorption, dimensional change and radial pressure in resin matrix dental restorative materials. Biomaterials 25:4001–4007PubMedCrossRef

34.

Lucena-Martin C, Lopez S, de Mondelo J (2001) The effect of various surface treatments and bonding agents on the repaired strength of heat-treated composites. J Prosthet Dent 86:481–488PubMedCrossRef

35.

Rathke A, Tymina Y, Haller B (2009) Effect of different surface treatments on the composite–composite repair bond strength. Clin Oral Invest 13:317–323CrossRef

36.

Özcan M, Vallittu PK (2003) Effect of surface conditioning methods on the bond strength of luting cement to ceramics. Dent Mater 19:725–731PubMedCrossRef

Title: Effects of surface conditioning on repair bond strengths of non-aged and aged microhybrid, nanohybrid, and nanofilled composite resins
Authors: Margareta Rinastiti
Mutlu Özcan
Widowati Siswomihardjo
Henk J. Busscher
Publication date: 01-10-2011
Publisher: Springer-Verlag
Published in: Clinical Oral Investigations / Issue 5/2011
Print ISSN: 1432-6981
Electronic ISSN: 1436-3771
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00784-010-0426-6

Keynote webinar | Spotlight on medication adherence

Springer Medicine

Effects of surface conditioning on repair bond strengths of non-aged and aged microhybrid, nanohybrid, and nanofilled composite resins

Abstract

Keynote webinar | Spotlight on medication adherence

Springer Medicine

Abstract

Please log in to get access to this content

Other articles of this Issue 5/2011

Extramasticatory dental wear reflecting habitual behavior and health in past populations

Immunohistochemical expression of vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) in different types of odontogenic cysts

Galvano- vs. metal-ceramic crowns: up to 5-year results of a randomised split-mouth study

Spatial relation between a rigid (digital) intraoral X-ray receptor and longitudinal axes of maxillary teeth

Correlation of RDC/TMD axis I diagnoses and axis II pain-related disability. A multicenter study

Muscle and joint forces under variable equilibrium states of the mandible