TY - JOUR

T1 - Repair bond strength of resin composite to restorative materials after short- and long-term storage

AU - Flury, Simon

AU - Dulla, Fabrice A.

AU - Peutzfeldt, Anne

PY - 2019

Y1 - 2019

N2 - Objectives: To investigate short- and long-term bond strength (“repair bond strength”; RBS)of a resin composite to six restorative materials using either a silane and a bonding agent or a universal “one-step self-etch” adhesive system. Methods: Specimens were produced from an amalgam, a direct resin composite, two indirect resin composites, a hybrid ceramic, and a feldspar ceramic and stored for 3 months in tap water (37 °C). All specimens were then sandblasted (Al 2 O 3 ; 25 μm)and either treated with Monobond Plus and OptiBond FL Adhesive (MP-OFL)or with Scotchbond Universal (SBU). Filtek Z250 was used as “repair composite”, and RBS was measured by means of a micro shear bond strength test after 24 h or after 1 year. RBS values (n = 15/group)were statistically analyzed (α = 0.05). Results: RBS (MPa; mean values (standard deviations))after 24 h for MP-OFL: 18.6 (3.2)–23.9 (5.0)and for SBU: 12.5 (4.9)–18.1 (4.6); after 1 year for MP-OFL: 8.9 (4.6)–19.8 (4.3)and for SBU: 5.6 (2.3)–18.8 (3.5). After 24 h, MP-OFL showed significantly higher RBS to the hybrid ceramic and the feldspar ceramic than did SBU (p ≤ 0.0001)whereas there was no significant difference in RBS for the other four restorative materials. After 1 year, MP-OFL showed significantly higher RBS to the feldspar ceramic than did SBU (p = 0.043)whereas there was no significant difference in RBS for the other five restorative materials. Significance: The use of a silane and a bonding agent seems more versatile for repairing restorations than the use of a universal “one-step self-etch” adhesive system.

AB - Objectives: To investigate short- and long-term bond strength (“repair bond strength”; RBS)of a resin composite to six restorative materials using either a silane and a bonding agent or a universal “one-step self-etch” adhesive system. Methods: Specimens were produced from an amalgam, a direct resin composite, two indirect resin composites, a hybrid ceramic, and a feldspar ceramic and stored for 3 months in tap water (37 °C). All specimens were then sandblasted (Al 2 O 3 ; 25 μm)and either treated with Monobond Plus and OptiBond FL Adhesive (MP-OFL)or with Scotchbond Universal (SBU). Filtek Z250 was used as “repair composite”, and RBS was measured by means of a micro shear bond strength test after 24 h or after 1 year. RBS values (n = 15/group)were statistically analyzed (α = 0.05). Results: RBS (MPa; mean values (standard deviations))after 24 h for MP-OFL: 18.6 (3.2)–23.9 (5.0)and for SBU: 12.5 (4.9)–18.1 (4.6); after 1 year for MP-OFL: 8.9 (4.6)–19.8 (4.3)and for SBU: 5.6 (2.3)–18.8 (3.5). After 24 h, MP-OFL showed significantly higher RBS to the hybrid ceramic and the feldspar ceramic than did SBU (p ≤ 0.0001)whereas there was no significant difference in RBS for the other four restorative materials. After 1 year, MP-OFL showed significantly higher RBS to the feldspar ceramic than did SBU (p = 0.043)whereas there was no significant difference in RBS for the other five restorative materials. Significance: The use of a silane and a bonding agent seems more versatile for repairing restorations than the use of a universal “one-step self-etch” adhesive system.

KW - Adhesion

KW - Amalgam

KW - Artificial aging

KW - Ceramic

KW - Resin composite

U2 - 10.1016/j.dental.2019.05.008

DO - 10.1016/j.dental.2019.05.008

M3 - Journal article

C2 - 31146960

AN - SCOPUS:85066011981

VL - 35

SP - 1205

EP - 1213

JO - Dental Materials

JF - Dental Materials

SN - 0109-5641

IS - 9

ER -