Effect of Surface Treatments on Microtensile Bond Strength of Repaired Aged Silorane Resin Composite

Operative Dentistry (Impact Factor: 1.67). 07/2012; 38(1). DOI: 10.2341/11-057-L
Source: PubMed


This laboratory study compared the repaired microtensile bond strengths of aged silorane resin composite using different surface treatments and either silorane or methacrylate resin composite.

One hundred eight silorane resin composite blocks (Filtek LS) were fabricated and aged by thermocycling between 8°C and 48°C (5000 cycles). A control (solid resin composite) and four surface treatment groups (no treatment, acid treatment, aluminum oxide sandblasting, and diamond bur abrasion) were tested (N=12 blocks, 108 beams/group). Each treatment group was randomly divided in half and repaired with either silorane resin composite (LS adhesive) or methacrylate resin composite (Filtek Z250/Single Bond Plus). After 24 hours in 37°C distilled water, microtensile bond strength testing was performed using a non-trimming technique. Surface topography after surface treatment was analyzed using scanning electron microscopy (SEM). Failure mode was examined using optical microscopy (50×).

Weibull-distribution survival analysis revealed that aluminum oxide sandblasting followed by silorane or methacrylate resin composite and acid treatment with methacrylate resin composite provided insignificant differences from the control (p>0.05). All other groups were significantly lower than the control. Failure was primarily adhesive in all groups.

Aluminum oxide sandblasting produced microtensile bond strength not different from the cohesive strength of silorane resin composite. After aluminum oxide sandblasting, aged silorane resin composite can be repaired with either silorane resin composite with LS system adhesive or methacrylate resin composite with methacrylate dental adhesive.

1 Follower
17 Reads
  • Source
    The journal of adhesive dentistry 12/2013; 15(6):592. DOI:10.3290/j.jad.a31110 · 1.31 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: The aim of this study was to evaluate the repair bond strength of silorane composites using either the silorane or methacrylate-based restorative systems. Expired silorane composite was used as the substrate material in all experimental groups. Silorane blocks (5 × 5 × 4 mm) were fabricated and stored at 37 °C for 24 h. Six experimental groups were developed according to the repair: I-silorane composite (no intermediary); II-P90 bond/silorane; III-P90 Adhesive System (primer/bond)/ silorane; IV-P90 bond/Scotchbond Universal/methacrylate composite (Filtek P60); V-Scotchbond Universal/methacrylate; and VI-silane/Adper Single Bond 2/methacrylate. The repaired blocks were stored for 24 h at 37 °C, and then sectioned, yielding stick-shaped specimens (0.5 mm2) that were tested in tensile (0.5 mm/min). The results were analyzed using ANOVA/Tukey test (α = 0.05). The interfacial micromorphology and nanoleakage were also analyzed under SEM. Scotchbond Universal/methacrylate composite, either associated with the P90 bond or not, exhibited similar bond strength to that of P90 Adhesive System/silorane composite. Scotchbond Universal either associated with the P90 Bond or not to repair the silorane allowed no pre-testing failures. The worst scenarios were repairing the silorane with 25 no intermediary (G-I) or combination silane/Adper Single Bond 2/methacrylate composite (G-VI) that presented significantly lower bond strengths and higher incidences of pre-failure testing. The importance of the silane was not confirmed. Characteristic micromorphology and no signs of nanoleakage were identified in all experimental groups. The silane-containing, phosphorylated methacrylate-based adhesive associated with a methacrylate composite was proven to reliably repair the silorane composite in a similar way to that of the application of dedicated silorane adhesive.
    Journal of Adhesion Science and Technology 04/2014; 28(16):1579-1591. DOI:10.1080/01694243.2014.906052 · 0.96 Impact Factor
  • Source
    05/2014; 17(2). DOI:10.14295/bds.2014.v17i2.971
Show more


17 Reads