Scoping review: Effect of surface treatments on bond strength of resin composite repair

OBJECTIVE

to evaluate the existing evidence on surface treatment techniques employed in resin composite repair and their effect on the repair short- and long-term bond strength.

DATA AND SOURCE

This scoping review was performed under the PRISMA-ScR guidelines for scoping reviews and registered on the Open Science Framework platform.

STUDY SELECTION

A systematic search was conducted in PubMed, Embase, and Scopus and grey literature up to September 2022 without language or date restriction. In vitro studies comparing mechanical surface and/or chemical treatments on repair bond strength of resin composite were included. Studies evaluating experimental adhesive systems or resin composites were excluded. Selection of studies and data extraction were performed. Data from selected studies was qualitatively analyzed.

RESULTS

A total of 76 studies were included in the qualitative analysis. Among the mechanical treatments, alumina blasting was the most frequently used, followed by silica coating and diamond bur. As for chemical treatments, dentin bonding systems were the most frequently evaluated, followed by universal adhesive systems and silane/ceramic primer. The combination of mechanical and chemical pre-treatments increased the repair bond strength of resin composite in both short- and long-term simulated aging scenarios. The evidence obtained from the included studies was classified as moderate quality, mainly due to the medium risk of bias observed across most of the studies.

CONCLUSION

The techniques used to treat the surface of resin composites for repair are diverse. Incorporating a combination of mechanical and chemical pre-treatments resulted in superior repair bond strength of resin composite materials under both short- and long-term simulated aging conditions.

CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE

The analysis of evidence revealed significant variability among protocols for repairing resin composites. Utilizing both mechanical and chemical pre-treatment methods is important for enhancing the bond strength of resin composites during both short- and long-term simulated aging situations.

Flexural Strength of Conventional or Bulk-fill Resin Composite Repaired with High- or Low-viscosity Restorative Materials

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the flexural strength of two types of high-viscosity resin composites (conventional or bulk-fill) that were repaired with either high-viscosity composites (conventional or bulk-fill) or low-viscosity composites (conventional or bulk-fill) of the same manufacturer (3M Oral Care, St Paul, MN, USA).

METHODS AND MATERIALS

Specimens (25 mm × 2 mm × 2 mm) of both conventional nanofilled resin (Filtek Z350XT), and bulk-fill nanofilled resin (Filtek One Bulk Fill) were prepared. After fracture of the specimens in the 3-point bending test (initial), half of the specimens were repaired immediately afterwards (24 hours), and the other half were repaired after 6 months of storage in distilled water. Repairs were performed with (n=15) high-viscosity resin composites (Filtek Z350XT, Filtek One Bulk Fill), or their low-viscosity versions (Filtek Supreme XT Flow, Filtek Bulk Fill Flowable Restorative). The repair was performed by roughening the surface and applying phosphoric acid, silane, and adhesive. The bending test (results reported in MPa) was performed in a universal testing machine, and the fracture pattern was determined. Data were evaluated by generalized linear models, chi-square test and the Fisher exact test (α=0.05).

RESULTS

There was no significant difference between the former pair of high-viscosity resins in terms of initial flexural strength (p=0.42). The repairs performed with low-viscosity resin composites after 24 hours or 6 months obtained higher MPa values compared with those using high-viscosity composites (p=0.0006). There was a significant decrease in MPa values when the repair was performed after 24 hours and an increase after 6 months, regardless of the material (p<0.0001). After 6 months, fractures involving the old (conventional) resin were more frequent in the repair performed with bulk-fill resin composites compared with the conventional composites (p=0.02).

CONCLUSIONS

Considering the tested products, the material to be repaired did not influence the flexural strength of the repair composite; however, the use of the low-viscosity resin composites resulted in greater flexural strength of the repaired material. The repair of the aged composite resulted in an increase in its flexural strength, regardless of the material repaired or used to perform the repair.

The comparison of the repair bond strength of the composite resin to direct and indirect composite restorations with different surface preparations

Background

Indirect restorations have been employed in restorative dentistry to solve some of the drawbacks of direct restorations. The aim of this study was to evaluate the effect of different modes of a universal adhesive resin on the repair capacity of two indirect resin composites and a direct resin composite.

Methods

Indirect composite resins (Ceramage and Gradia Plus) and a direct composite resin (Filtek Z250) were prepared in a plastic mold with a height and diameter of 2-mm and 6-mm, respectively. Composite blocks were thermocycled (5000 cycles, 5°C-55°C). Then, according to their surface treatments, composite blocks were categorized into six-groups: Group 1: ER (etch&rinse), Group 2: SE (self-etch), Group 3: Bur+ER (bur+etch&rinse), Group 4: Bur+SE (bur+self-etch), Group 5: Bur+Silane+ER (bur+silane+etch&rinse), Group 6: Bur+Silane+SE (bur+silane+self-etch), respectively. After surface treatments and adhesive application for bonding with a direct resin composite, all groups were then thermocycled before performing shear-bond-strength-test. Failure modes were evaluated using a stereomicroscope. Data were analyzed by two-way-ANOVA and Bonferroni-test (P<0.05).

Results

The highest bond-strength values were obtained for Bur+Silane+SE groups, while the lowest values were obtained for the Bur+Silane+ER groups for all materials. Statistically significant differences were observed between the Bur+Silane+ER group and ER, Bur+ER and Bur+Silane+SE groups in Gradia Plus (P<0.05).

Conclusion

The self-etch-mode of the universal-adhesive and silane applications led to the increase in the repair-strength of the adhesive in the Filtek Z250 and Ceramage. The self-etch-mode of the universal-adhesive might be used to reduce adhesive-application-steps in the clinical repair procedures.

Chemical Surface Modification Methods of Resin Composite Repaired with Resin-Modified Glass-Ionomer Cement

OBJECTIVE

 This study examined the chemical surface modification methods of resin composite repaired with resin-modified glass-ionomer cement (RMGIC).

MATERIALS AND METHODS

 Ninety aged resin composite rods were produced and sorted into 9 groups of 10 specimens and surface modified with silane agent and/or bonding agent as follows: group 1, no surface modified; group 2, etch + single bond 2 (SB2); group 3, SB2; group 4, etch + RelyX ceramic primer (RXP) + SB2; group 5, RXP + SB2; group 6, etch + single bond universal (SU); group 7, SU; group 8, etch + RXP + SU; and group 9, RXP + SU. A clear silicone mold was placed on the top of specimen center, and then filled with RMGIC. The specimens' shear bond strengths (SBSs) were examined in mechanical testing equipment. To determine failure types, the fractured specimen surfaces were inspected using a stereomicroscope.

STATISTICAL ANALYSIS

 The data collected were analyzed using one-way analysis of variance, and significance level was operated using Tukey's test (p < 0.05).

RESULTS

 Group 8 had the greatest SBS, but it was statistically indistinguishable from groups 4, 5, and 9. The most frequent fracture mode was adhesive failure. High SBS was commonly associated with mixed failure.

CONCLUSION

 The use of bonding agents enhances the resin composite's wettability and allows it to bond to RMGIC. Moreover, the use of the silane coupling agent before applying bonding agent showed significantly higher bonding ability of resin composite and RMGIC interface.

Effects of different universal adhesives and surface treatments on repair bond strength between resin composites

OBJECTIVE

This study aimed to evaluate the effects of different universal adhesives and surface treatments on the repair bond strength between resin composites.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A total of 220 composite samples were divided into three groups according to the adhesive resin to be applied: 1) Scotchbond Universal, 2) G-Premio Bond, and 3) Peak Universal Bond. They were then divided into seven subgroups according to surface treatments (n = 10): A) air abrasion, B) air abrasion+silane, C) hydrofluoric acid, D) hydrofluoric acid+silane, E) air abrasion+hydrofluoric acid+silane, F) silane, and G) no surface treatment (negative control). After surface treatment, a repair composite was applied. Samples aged in the thermocycle were subjected to micro-tensile bond strength testing. Cohesive strength values of 10 non-aged composite blocks were used as a positive control. Kruskal-Wallis and one-way ANOVA tests were used for statistical evaluation. Fractured surfaces were evaluated using a scanning electron microscope.

RESULTS

In Scotchbond Universal and G-Premio Bond, the mean micro-tensile bond strength value of the no surface treatment subgroup was significantly lower than that of the positive control. All subgroups of Peak Universal Bond showed similar values to the positive control.

CONCLUSION

While Scotchbond Universal and G-Premio Bond required mechanical roughening before adhesive application, Peak Universal Bond did not require any surface treatment.

CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE

Different universal adhesives may show different repair bonding strengths with different surface treatments. Since achieving a standard in this regard can be associated with many independent factors, clinicians should determine how to apply the adhesive they use most effectively with the most appropriate surface treatment based on their own clinical experience.

The Effect of Different Surface Roughening Systems on the Micro-Shear Bond Strength of Aged Resin Composites

Background

There are controversies regarding the most effective surface treatment method to be applied for the effective repair of resin composites.

Aims

This study aimed to compare the effects of surface roughening processes on repair bond strength of different types of aged composites. Water aging was applied to 60 nanohybrid and 60 micro-hybrid resin composite samples for 1 year. Samples were randomly divided into five groups and four types of roughening processes. Bur, OPTIDISC, SUPERSNAP, and BISCO were applied to the water-aged resin composite samples. Micro-shear test method was used to measure the repair bond strength.

Materials and Methods

Data were analyzed with IBM SPSS V23. Compliance with normal distribution was examined by Kolmogorov-Smirnov test. Two-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) and Tukey HSD test for multiple comparisons were used.

Results

The main effect of the type of resin composites and surface roughening methods were found to be significantly different. The MPa values of surface roughening groups were similar while the lowest mean value was obtained for the untreated group of the nanohybrid resin composite (P < 0.001). The bond strength for both resin composites was generally considered within acceptable limits except for no treatment group of nanohybrid resin composite.

Conclusions

This study showed that surface roughening method is mandatory for effective bond strength and the type of fillers in resin composite affects the micro-shear bond strength.

Effect of adhesive application method on repair bond strength of composite

Objectives

This study aimed to evaluate the effect of the application method of universal adhesives on the shear bond strength (SBS) of repaired composites, applied with different thicknesses.

Materials and Methods

The 84 specimens (Filtek Z350 XT) were prepared, stored in distilled water for a week and thermocycled (5,000 cycles, 5°C to 55°C). They were roughened using 400-grit sandpapers and etched with phosphoric acid. Then, specimens were equally divided into 2 groups; Single Bond Universal (SU) and Prime&Bond Universal (PB). Each group was subdivided into 3 subgroups according to application methods (n = 14); UC: 1 coat + uncuring, 1C: 1 coat + curing, 3C: 3 coats + curing. After storage of the repaired composite for 24 hours, specimens were subjected to the SBS test and the data were statistically analyzed by 2-way analysis of variance and independent t-tests. Specimens were examined with a stereomicroscope to analyze fracture mode and a scanning electron microscope to observe the interface.

Results

Adhesive material was a significant factor (p = 0.001). Bond strengths with SU were higher than PB. The highest strength was obtained from the 1C group with SU. Bonding in multiple layers increased adhesive thicknesses, but there was no significant difference in SBS values (p = 0.255). Failure mode was predominantly cohesive in old composites.

Conclusions

The application of an adequate bonding system plays an important role in repairing composite resin. SU showed higher SBS than PB and the additional layers increased the adhesive thickness without affecting SBS.

Comparison of Shear Bond Strength of Three Commercially Available Esthetic Restorative Composite Materials: An In Vitro Study

Introduction

Dental caries remains to be one of the most prevalent diseases encountered in the field of dentistry. Several restorative materials have been introduced with variable properties and among them, composite restorative materials are most widely used nowadays because of their superior esthetic property as well as minimal hard tissue removal. Shear bond strength of a restorative material plays a key role in deciding the restoration’s longevity. Hence, for a better selection of the composite material, shear bond strength needs to be evaluated.

Aim

The study aim was to analyze the shear bond strength of three commercially available esthetic restorative composite materials—Dentsply Ceram X, 3M ESPE™ Filtek™ Z350 XT, and GC Solare Sculpt to the tooth surface.

Materials and methods

Thirty extracted human mandibular permanent molars that were caries-free were selected and erected in acrylic blocks. The uniform dentinal surface was exposed by cutting with a diamond disk. These were then randomly divided into three groups—groups I, II, and III based on the restorative material which was used, i.e., Ceram X, 3M ESPE™ Filtek™ Z350 XT, and Solare Sculpt, respectively. The restorative materials were applied on the dentinal surface of the prepared tooth specimens with the help of plastic molds, followed up by storing them in distilled water until they were subjected to shear bond strength testing. The collected data were examined by applying a one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) and Turkey’s post hoc test.

Results

The Ceram X (21.6155 ± 2.20717) and Solare Sculpt (19.8747 ± 3.99732) were comparable in terms of shear bond strength values; however, they depicted significantly higher bond strength compared to 3M ESPE™ Filtek™ Z350 XT (12.8068 ± 3.99732).

Conclusion

Among the three materials compared in this study, Ceram X produced higher shear bond strength to tooth surface when compared to Solare Sculpt and 3M ESPE™ Filtek™ Z350 XT.

Clinical significance

Restoration failure continues to be a major problem taking a toll on the dentists’ time and patient satisfaction. Thus, the demand for restorative materials with better shear bond strength as well as excellent esthetics is on the rise. Thus, this particular study compares the shear bond strength of three commercial esthetic nanocomposites.

How to cite this article

Preethy NA, Jeevanandan G, Govindaraju L, et al. Comparison of Shear Bond Strength of Three Commercially Available Esthetic Restorative Composite Materials : An In Vitro Study. Int J Clin Pediatr Dent 2020;13(6):635–639.

Effect of Argon Plasma Surface Treatment on Bond Strength of Resin Composite Repair

Objectives:

This study evaluated the effect of argon plasma treatment (PLA) and its combination with sandblasting (SAN), silanization (SIL), and hydrophobic bonding resin (HBR) application on the micro-shear bond strength of water-aged restorative resin composite to a newly placed composite, simulating restoration repair.

Methods and Materials:

Forty-five light-cured composite plates (20-mm long × 20-mm wide × 4-mm thick) were fabricated using a hybrid composite and stored at 37°C in distilled water for six months. The aged composite surfaces were treated according to the following experimental groups, varying both treatment and order of application: 1) SAN + SIL + HBR (control), 2) SAN + PLA for 30 seconds + SIL + HBR, 3) SAN + SIL + PLA + HBR, 4) PLA + SIL + HBR, 5) PLA + SIL, 6) PLA + HBR, 7) SIL + PLA + HBR, 8) SIL + PLA, and 9) PLA. After the surface treatments, four fresh resin composite cylinders (1.5-mm high × 1.5-mm diameter) of the same composite were built on each aged composite surface using a silicone mold. After water storage for 24 hours or one year, the specimens were submitted to shear bond strength testing. Data were statistically analyzed by two-way analysis of variance and Tukey's test (5%).

Results:

Groups 1, 2, and 4 presented significantly higher bond strength means at 24 hours, although group 4 did not differ from group 7. Groups 5, 8, and 9 demonstrated significantly lower means than the other groups. Even though groups 1 and 2 had a significant bond strength reduction after 1 year, they still demonstrated higher bond strength at one year of storage.

Conclusions:

While PLA application combined with surface treatment methods demonstrated high bond strength results, this treatment alone was not as beneficial as other methods that included SAN, SIL and HBR.

The repair bond strength to resin matrix in cured resin composites after water aging

The repair microshear bond strengths (µSBSs) to resin matrices in 4 different cured-composites after water storage (0, 60 s, 1 week, 1 month) were evaluated. Three different adhesive application methods to the cured-composites were performed; (1) none, (2) onestep self-etch adhesive application, and (3) one-step self-etch adhesive application with a silane coupling agent. Degree of conversion (DC) of the composite discs was determined using ATR/FT-IR with a time-based spectrum analysis. Initially, the amount of un-reacted resin monomers in the repaired cured-composite contributed to the bonding performance of newly-filled uncured-composite to resin matrix of the cured-composite. Adhesive application could not improve their repair µSBS. After 1-month of water-storage, the repair µSBS was dependent on material, which either reduced or did not and was not influenced by their amount of un-reacted resin monomers. When repairing aged composite resin, the appropriate adhesive application procedures were different among resin composites.

Repair bond strength of nanohybrid composite resins with a universal adhesive

Objective: To investigate the repair bond strength of fresh and aged nanohybrid and hybrid composite resins using a universal adhesive (UA).

Materials and methods: Fresh and aged substrates were prepared using two nanohybrid (Venus Pearl, Heraus Kulzer; Filtek Supreme XTE, 3 M ESPE) and one hybrid (Z100, 3 M ESPE) composite resin, and randomly assigned to different surface treatments: (1) no treatment (control), (2) surface roughening with 320-grit (SR), (3) SR + UA (iBOND, Heraus Kulzer), (4) SR + Silane (Signum, Ceramic Bond I, Heraeus Kulzer) + UA, (5) SR + Sandblasting (CoJet, 3 M ESPE) + Silane + UA. After surface treatment, fresh composite resin was added to the substrates at 2 mm layer increments to a height of 5 mm, and light cured. Restored specimens were water-stored for 24 h and sectioned to obtain 1.0 × 1.0 mm beams (n = 12), and were either water-stored for 24 h at 37 °C, or water-stored for 24 h, and then thermocycled for 6000 cycles before microtensile bond strength (µTBS) testing. Data were analyzed with ANOVA and Tukey’s HSD tests (p = .05).

Results: Combined treatment of SR, sandblasting, silane and UA provided repair bond strength values comparable to the cohesive strength of each tested resin material (p < .05). Thermocycling significantly reduced the cohesive strength of the composite resins upto 65% (p < .05). Repair bond strengths of UA-treated groups were more stable under thermocycling.

Conclusions: Universal adhesive application is a reliable method for composite repair. Sandblasting and silane application slightly increases the repair strength for all substrate types.

Shear bond strength of different surface treatments in bulk fill, microhybrid, and nanoparticle repair resins

Objectives

The purpose of this study was to evaluate the influence of surface treatment and different types of composite resin on the microshear bond strength of repairs.

Materials and methods

Seventy-two specimens (n=72) were prepared using a nanoparticle resin and stored in artificial saliva at 37 ± 1°C for 24 h. After this period, the specimens (n=24) were restored with microhybrid resin P60 (3M ESPE), nanoparticle resin Filtek Z350 (3M ESPE), and Bulk Fill Surefil SDR Flow (Dentsply) composite resins. Previously, the surfaces of the samples were treated, forming the following subgroups (n=12): (A) conditioned with 37% phosphoric acid for 30 s, and (B) abrasioned with a diamond tip for 3 s and conditioned with 37% phosphoric acid. In all groups, before insertion of the composite resin, the adhesive system Adper Single Bond 2 was actively applied and photopolymerized for 20 s.

Results

The microshear test was executed to assess bond strength. Kruskal–Wallis (p<0.05) and Mann–Whitney statistical tests showed significant statistical difference considering that the bulk-fill resin turned out to have a lower bond strength than the conventional nanoparticle and microhybrid composites. With regard to the technique, the roughening with diamond bur followed by the application of phosphoric acid exhibited values higher than the exclusive use of acid.

Conclusion

The microshear bond strength of the composite resin repairs varies in accordance with the type of composite resin utilized, and roughening the surface increased the bond strength of these materials.

Effect of Surface Treatment, Silane, and Universal Adhesive on Microshear Bond Strength of Nanofilled Composite Repairs

Purpose: The aim of this study was to evaluate the effect of surface treatment and universal adhesive on the microshear bond strength of nanoparticle composite repairs.

Methods: One hundred and forty-four specimens were built with a nanofilled composite (Filtek Supreme Ultra, 3M ESPE). The surfaces of all the specimens were polished with SiC paper and stored in distilled water at 37°C for 14 days. Half of the specimens were then air abraded with Al2O3 particles and cleaned with phosphoric acid. Polished specimens (P) and polished and air-abraded specimens (A), respectively, were randomly divided into two sets of six groups (n=12) according to the following treatments: hydrophobic adhesive only (PH and AH, respectively), silane and hydrophobic adhesive (PCH, ACH), methacryloyloxydecyl dihydrogen phosphate (MDP)–containing silane and hydrophobic adhesive (PMH, AMH), universal adhesive only (PU, AU), silane and universal adhesive (PCU, ACU), and MDP-containing silane and universal adhesive (PMU, AMU). A cylinder with the same composite resin (1.1-mm diameter) was bonded to the treated surfaces to simulate the repair. After 48 hours, the specimens were subjected to microshear testing in a universal testing machine. The failure area was analyzed under an optical microscope at 50× magnification to identify the failure type, and the data were analyzed by three-way analysis of variance and the Games-Howell test (α=0.05).

Results: The variables “surface treatment” and “adhesive” showed statistically significant differences for p&lt;0.05. The highest mean shear bond strength was found in the ACU group but was not statistically different from the means for the other air-abraded groups except AH. All the polished groups except PU showed statistically significant differences compared with the air-abraded groups. The PU group had the highest mean among the polished groups. Cohesive failure was the most frequent failure mode in the air-abraded specimens, while mixed failure was the most common mode in the polished specimens.

Conclusions: While air abrasion with Al2O3 particles increased the repair bond strength of the nanoparticle composite, the use of MDP-containing silane did not lead to a statistically significant increase in bond strength. Silane-containing universal adhesive on its own was as effective as any combination of silane and adhesive, particularly when applied on air-abraded surfaces.

Effect of curing and silanizing on composite repair bond strength using an improved micro-tensile test method

Objectives: To evaluate the micro-tensile repair bond strength between aged and new composite, using silane and adhesives that were cured or left uncured when new composite was placed.

Methods: Eighty Filtek Supreme XLT composite blocks and four control blocks were stored in water for two weeks and thermo-cycled. Sandpaper ground, etched and rinsed specimens were divided into two experimental groups: A, no further treatment and B, the surface was coated with bis-silane. Each group was divided into subgroups: (1) Adper Scotchbond Multi-Purpose, (2) Adper Scotchbond Multi-Purpose adhesive, (3) Adper Scotchbond Universal, (4) Clearfil SE Bond and (5) One Step Plus. For each adhesive group, the adhesive was (a) cured according to manufacturer’s instructions or (b) not cured before repair. The substrate blocks were repaired with Filtek Supreme XLT. After aging, they were serially sectioned, producing 1.1 × 1.1 mm square test rods. The rods were prepared for tensile testing and tensile strength calculated at fracture. Type of fracture was examined under microscope.

Results: Leaving the adhesive uncured prior to composite repair placement increased the mean tensile values statistically significant for all adhesives tested, with or without silane pretreatment. Silane surface treatment improved significantly (p < 0.001) tensile strength values for all adhesives, both for the cured and uncured groups. The mean strength of the control composite was higher than the strongest repair strength (p < 0.001).

Conclusions: Application of freshly made silane and a thin bonding layer, rendered higher tensile bond strength. Not curing the adhesive before composite placement increased the tensile bond strength.

Repair Bond Strength of Aged Resin Composite after Different Surface and Bonding Treatments

The aim of this study was to compare the effect of different mechanical surface treatments and chemical bonding protocols on the tensile bond strength (TBS) of aged composite. Bar specimens were produced using a nanohybrid resin composite and aged in distilled water for 30 days. Different surface treatments (diamond bur, phosphoric acid, silane, and sandblasting with Al₂O₃ or CoJet Sand), as well as bonding protocols (Primer/Adhesive) were used prior to application of the repair composite. TBS of the specimens was measured and the results were analyzed using analysis of variance (ANOVA) and the Student-Newman-Keuls test (α = 0.05). Mechanically treated surfaces were characterized under SEM and by profilometry. The effect of water aging on the degree of conversion was measured by means of FTIR-ATR spectroscopy. An important increase in the degree of conversion was observed after aging. No significant differences in TBS were observed among the mechanical surface treatments, despite variations in surface roughness profiles. Phosphoric acid etching significantly improved repair bond strength values. The cohesive TBS of the material was only reached using resin bonding agents. Application of an intermediate bonding system plays a key role in achieving reliable repair bond strengths, whereas the kind of mechanical surface treatment appears to play a secondary role.