Bond strength of a composite resin to an adhesive luting cement

Abstract

This study evaluated the influence of surface treatment on the shear bond strength of a composite resin (CR), previously submitted to the application of a temporary cement (TC), to an adhesive luting cement. Eight-four CR cylinders (5 mm diameter and 3 mm high) were fabricated and embedded in acrylic resin. The sets were divided into 6 groups (G1 to G6) (n=12). Groups 2 to 6 received a coat of TC. After 24 h, TC was removed and the CR surfaces received the following treatments: G2: ethanol; G3: rotary brush and pumice; G4: air-abrasion; G5: air-abrasion and adhesive system; G6: air-abrasion, acid etching and adhesive system. G1 (control) did not receive TC or any surface treatment. The sets were adapted to a matrix and received an increment of an adhesive luting cement. The specimens were subjected to the shear bond strength test. ANOVA and Tukey's tests showed that G3 (8.53 MPa) and G4 (8.63 MPa) differed significantly (p=0.001) from G1 (13.34 MPa). The highest mean shear bond strength values were found in G5 (14.78 MPa) and G6 (15.86 MPa). Air-abrasion of CR surface associated with an adhesive system provided an effective bond of the CR to the adhesive luting cement, regardless the pre-treatment with the phosphoric acid.

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

“…Although BF resin presents a low viscosity and elevated fluidity with internal adaptation in dentine,26 these characteristics, by themselves, are not sufficient to promote a higher bond strength in repairs done with composite resins. Fluid resins have reduced mechanical and physical features compared to traditional hybrid resins27; this may represent a concern when the repair is in a high-tension area,28 suggesting indications for cracking 29…”

Comparative evaluation of the shear bond strength of adhesive and self-adhesive resin luting agents to three commercially available composite core build-up materials: An in vitro study

“…Solvents present in the adhesive systems may cause modification of the surface layer, enabling the monomer of the RLA to react with the nonconverted vinyl groups (−C=C) at the subsurface of the composite CBM. [ 29 ]…”

Influence of Different Surface Treatments on the Bond Strength Between Composites and Resin Cement

“…In the attempt to improve this bond, many chemical and mechanical surface treatments have been tested with the purpose of increasing the surface bond strength of the composite (1,(3)(4)(5)(6)(7). Among mechanical treatments, aluminium oxide sandblasting (6)(7)(8)(9)(10)(11)(12) and the silica-modified aluminium oxide particles sandblasting (5-7, 10, 12, 13) have shown the most effective results in raising the values of bond strength between composites. Many times, those values reach similar tensile strength values of the original composite (11,14).…”

“…Studies have evaluated the repair bond strength in silorane based composites after surface treatments (11)(12)(13)(21)(22)(23) and the repair bond strength between resin composites (6,7,(10)(11)(12)(22)(23)(24)(25)(26). However, few studies approached surface treatments between composites and resin cements by luting analyses with composites blocks for indirect restorations (16,27) and not by direct analysis of bond strength between a resin cement and a resin composite (9).…”