Composite–composite adhesion in dentistry: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Abstract

Controversy exists in the literature regarding the most optimal repair procedure for improving the adhesion between the repair resin and the existing resin composite materials. This systematic review analyzed the adhesion potential of resin-based composites to similar and dissimilar composites. Original scientific papers on adhesion to composites published in MEDLINE (PubMed) database between 1 January 1955 and 1 June 2010 were included in this systematic review. Bond-strength data were evaluated for different factor levels, namely surface conditioning methods (control, physical, chemical, physicochemical), substrate-adherent type (being of the same kind or dissimilar), substrate aging (thermocycling or water storage), and test methods (macroshear, microshear, macrotensile, microtensile). The selection process resulted in the final sample of 41 studies. In total, 160 different surface conditioning methods, being mainly combinations of the use of etching agents, application of grinding or air-abrasion protocols, and adhesive promoters (silanes, adhesive resins), have been investigated. When substrate is aged with thermocycling, bond-strength results for composite-composite combinations of the same material were significantly influenced by the surface conditioning method (p = 0.010) and with the test method (p = 0.014), but for dissimilar composite-composite combinations, only test method (p = 0.000) showed a significant effect on the results. When substrate is aged with water storage, bond-strength results for composite-composite combinations of the same material were significantly influenced by the surface conditioning method (p = 0.000), but for dissimilar material combinations only test method showed a significant effect (p = 0.000) on the results. For the composite combinations of the same kind, the impact of surface conditioning type and the test method in thermocycled group was higher on the results.

Repair of aged bulk‐fill composite with posterior composite: Effect of different surface treatments

“…Substrate surfaces were grinded with 400‐grit silicon carbide sandpapers under watery conditions prior to any surface treatments to obtain flat and standardized surfaces covered with smear layers similar to the smear layers created with coarse diamond burs in the present study. According to a recent review, grinding repair surfaces with silicone carbide abrasive papers ranging between 60 and 1200‐grit is a common procedure in the literature . It is interesting that although this procedure likely increases surface roughness, it was frequently reported that this was not enough to re‐establish the repair bond strength of resin composites when compared to the original cohesive strength of nonaged resin composite, as is also shown in this study for both aged P60 and aged Bulk Fill Restorative composites.…”

“…Various surface treatments have been proposed to improve the repair strength of composites, including psychical surface treatments such as sandblasting, air abrasion, acid etching treatments, bur roughening, and chemical surface treatments such as silane and resin adhesive applications . Ozcan et al, demonstrated that chairside silica coating and silanization provided higher resin–resin bond strength values compared to acid etching with phosphoric acid followed by adhesive resin applications .…”

“…Thus, a number of repair methods are recommended to increase the repair strength of newly added resin composite to aged resin composite surfaces. The most common recommendations are increasing surface roughness and the application of an adhesive agent …”

Fracture strength, failure type and Weibull characteristics of lithium disilicate and multiphase resin composite endocrowns under axial and lateral forces

“…On the other hand, since lateral forces decreased the fracture strength for all groups significantly compared to axial forces, the second hypothesis could be rejected. failure types in the material after axial loading could be repaired using resin composites after appropriate conditioning of the LI or LA material [26,27]. On the other hand, debonded restorations experienced after lateral could be recemented using resin cements again after surface conditioning.…”

Effect of clinical and laboratory contamination media on the adhesion of luting cement to direct and indirect resin composite materials

“…[24] On the other hand, the best adhesion protocol for resin composites requires initial surface conditioning with air-abrasion using alumina particles coated with silica followed by silanization. [25][26][27] Thus, it could be anticipated that air-abrasion protocol could remove the contaminated layer and circumvent the decrease in bond strength of the resin cement to the conditioned surface.…”