Composite-composite Adhesion as a Function of Adhesive-composite Material and Surface Treatment

Effect of resin composite shade on digital fiber-optic transillumination imaging in vitro

Digital imaging fiber-optic transillumination (DIFOTI) devices have been used to detect caries, a technique without using X-rays. However, the effects of resin composites (RCs) shades on the images acquired with DIFOTI devices have not been investigated. Thus, this study aimed to elucidate the influence of RC shade on the images obtained with DIFOTI technique. Three shades (A1, A3, and Opaque) for each of four flowable RCs were filled on a cavity prepared in a left mandibular first premolar obtained from a donated body. Then, transmission images with a DIFOTI device (DIAGNOcam; KaVo, Biberach, Germany) were acquired, and the average lightness values of the images in the RC and enamel were used to calculate differences between those areas. To clarify the influence of the optical translucency and color on DIFOTI images, the color parameters (L*, a* and b*) of each RC were obtained with black and white backgrounds. The color differences between the backgrounds were calculated as transparency parameter (TP) values. The number of repetitions was set to 10. Differences in the lightness value of the shades varied in each RC. The difference in lightness was significantly associated with the TP value and color parameters of L* (p < 0.01), with negative (R = - 0.81) and positive (R = 0.84) correlations, respectively. In conclusion, DIFOTI images of RCs with high optical translucency resembled those of the natural tooth structure.

Repair of Bulk-Fill and Nanohybrid Resin Composites: Effect of Surface Conditioning, Adhesive Promoters, and Long-Term Aging

The aim of the study was to investigate the effect of different repair procedures on the repair bond strength of bulk-fill and nanohybrid resin composites after different aging periods. The resin composite blocks (8 × 8 × 4 mm3) were prepared from a bulk-fill (reliaFIL Bulk) and a nanohybrid (reliaFIL LC) resin composite and grouped according to aging duration (6 months, 1 year, and 2 years). Following aging, the blocks were assigned to different surface treatments; air-abrasion with aluminum oxide powder, roughening with a diamond bur, and no treatment. After cleansing with phosphoric acid, a silane layer (Porcelain Primer) was applied on the surface of half of the specimens in each group. The specimens were subdivided into two groups (n = 5): Scotchbond Universal (3M Oral Care) and All-Bond Universal (Bisco). The blocks were repaired with the nanohybrid composite (8 × 8 × 8 mm 3). The repaired specimens were stored in distilled water (37 °C/24 h) and segmented into beams. Half of the beams were immediately subjected to microtensile μTBS testing (1 mm/min), while the other half was stored in distilled water (37 °C) for 6 months before testing. Failure modes were analyzed using stereomicroscope and SEM. Statistical analyses were performed with ANOVA and least significant difference tests (LSD) tests (p = 0.05). The extension of aging periods (6 months, 1 year, and 2 years) reduced the repair bond strength in some groups for both resin composites (p < 0.05). The air-abrasion and bur roughening improved the repair bond strength (p < 0.05). The silane application did not influence the repair bond strength and durability (p > 0.05). There was no difference among the universal adhesives in the same surface treatment groups (p > 0.05). The mechanical roughening treatments are necessary for the repair of resin composite. The universal adhesives might be used for the repair of resin composites regardless of silane content without prior silane application.

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.

Composite repair: On the fatigue strength of universal adhesives

OBJECTIVES

To determine whether the composition of universal adhesives and the use of silane coupling agents could affect the fatigue strength of composite repair.

METHODS

Composite samples were aged in water at 37 °C for 90 days and bonded to fresh composite to produce twin-bonded bar-shaped composite specimens (2 × 2 × 12 mm). Five universal adhesives, a multistep composite repair system and a hydrophobic solvent-free resin associated to a separate silane coupling agent application were used for bonding. Composite samples were tested under 4-pointflexure initially at quasi-static loading (n = 12) followed by cyclic loading (n = 25). The stress-life fatigue behavior was evaluated following the staircase method at 4 Hz. The unfractured side of cyclic loaded beams were evaluated under SEM to determine crack initiation sites. Fatigue data was analyzed by ANOVA and Tukey test and Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test (α = 0.05).

RESULTS

Bonding protocols were unable to restore the cohesive strength of the nanofilled composite (p < 0.05). Fatigue testing was more discriminative to reveal discrepancies in composite repair than conventional quasi-static loading. While the composition of universal adhesives affected composite repair potential, the highest endurance limits occurred for the separate silane coupling agent application. Crack propagation sites were mostly located on the aged composite surface.

SIGNIFICANCE

Although a trend for simplification invariably overruns current adhesive dentistry, composite repair using solely universal adhesives may result in inferior repair potential. The additonal use of silane coupling agents remains as an important procedure in composite repairs.

Effect of Tribochemical Coating on Composite Repair Strength

Clinical Relevance

Tribochemical treatment of existing composite surfaces is highly effective for composite repair. When repairing an old composite restoration, the clinician should try to use the same composite originally used for the restoration. If the information about the original restoration is not known, a composite with strong mechanical properties should be used for the repair restoration.

SUMMARY

This study evaluated the effect of tribochemical coating on composite-to-composite repair interfacial fracture toughness (iFT). Sixty beam-shaped specimens (21×4×3 ± 0.2 mm) were prepared with a nanofill composite (Filtek Supreme Ultra [FSU]) and a nanohybrid composite (Clearfil Majesty ES-2 [CME]) and aged for 50,000 thermocycles (5°C-55°C, 20-second dwell time) and then sectioned in half. The resulting 120 hemispecimens (60 for each composite) were randomly assigned to different repair methods (n=10): universal adhesive (Clearfil Universal Bond Quick [CUB]), sand-blasting followed by CUB, or tribochemical coating (CoJet, CoJet sand, Espe-Sil, and Visio-Bond). The repair surface was prepared with a diamond bur (Midwest #471271), rinsed, and dried. Each aged composite brand (FSU, CME) was repaired with either the same composite or the opposite composite. All adhesives and composites were light cured with a high-irradiance LED curing light (Elipar DeepCure-S). After postrepair storage in 100% humidity and at 37°C for 24 hours, iFT was measured as KIc (MPa m½). Data were analyzed for statistical significance using two-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) and the Tukey honest significant difference post hoc test (α=0.05). Regardless of the substrate composite, ANOVA showed significant differences for surface treatment (p&lt;0.0001) and repair composite (p&lt;0.0001). Mean iFT values (SD) ranged from 0.91 (0.10) MPa·m½ to 2.68 (0.12) MPa·m½. Repairs made with FSU after CoJet resulted in significantly higher iFT (FSU: 2.68 MPa·m½; CME: 2.21 MPa·m½) when compared to the other experimental groups. The repair iFT was higher with CoJet treatment and when the nanofill composite FSU was used as the repair composite.