Influence of Surface Conditioning on the Repair Strength of Bioactive Restorative Material

Awad, Mohamed M.; Almutairi, Nader; Alhalabi, Feras; Robaian, Ali; Vohra, Fahim; Özcan, Mutlu; Maawadh, Ahmed; Alrahlah, Ali

doi:10.1177/2280800020926615

Cited by 6 publications

(6 citation statements)

References 28 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Several chemical or mechanical surface treatment methods, such as sandblasting using a microetcher, and the application of hydrofluoric acid, silane, adhesive, or a combination of these, have been recommended. 25 , 33 , 34 , 35 However, sandblasting and the application of hydrofluoric acid are not ideal methods to execute intraorally. Besides, it is more favorable to carry out a simple procedure rather than a complicated one in clinical settings.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Influence of commercial adhesive with/without silane on the bond strength of resin-based composite repaired within twenty-four hours

Chen

et al. 2021

Journal of Dental Sciences

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background/purpose It is not clear whether the ground surface of resin-based composite (RBC) polymerized requires the application of an adhesive with/without a silane to improve bond strength. This study investigated the bond strength of RBC repaired within 24 h via the application of adhesive with/without a silane. Materials and methods Seventy RBC blocks were prepared and assigned to either 0 or 24 h repair stage. Each stage was divided into seven groups: a control group with no surface roughening or applied adhesive, a surface-roughened group with no applied adhesive, two surface-roughened groups treated with a G-aenial Bond adhesive and a BeautiBond Multi adhesive, two surface-roughened groups treated with the previously-mentioned adhesives as well as silane coupling agents, and one group treated with a Single Bond Universal silane-containing adhesive. Microtensile bond strength (μTBS) measurements were performed after the repaired RBC blocks of each group (n = 5) had been immersed in a 37 °C water bath for 24 h. The failure mode of each sample was determined, and the data were analyzed via one-way analysis of variance and Dunnett's test ( p = 0.05). Results Regardless of the repair stage, the μTBS values of the adhesive-only and silane-adhesive groups did not differ significantly from those of the control group ( p > 0.05). Only the no-adhesive groups exhibited a significantly time-dependent increase in adhesive failure rate. Conclusion Our results suggest that the application of adhesives either with or without silane can significantly increase the bond strength of repairs to RBCs polymerized within 24 h.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Influence of commercial adhesive with/without silane on the bond strength of resin-based composite repaired within twenty-four hours

Chen

et al. 2021

Journal of Dental Sciences

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…In repair procedures, the union between a new resin and the aged one occurs through the chemical union between the organic matrix and/or through mechanical retention [ 21 ]. The challenges associated to this procedure remains over the fact that the surface of the aged composites lacks any unreacted double bonds available for bonding to the new composite [ 18 , 27 ]. The use of physical or chemical procedures, such as sandblasting, bur abrasion, acid etching (hydrofluoric or phosphoric acids) among others, aims to remove the outermost surface layer, which is altered by the saliva, oral films, and by the natural aging of the restoration, thus increasing the external layer surface energy and surface area and creating micro-irregularities [ 20 ].…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Repairs of partly defective restorations are indicated for resin-based composites (RBCs) aiming to increase the longevity of the restoration and consequently the tooth, being part of the minimally invasive dentistry philosophy [8]. e repairs involve partial removal of the defective part of the restoration, which is then replaced using a new material, and therefore, the knowledge of the composition of the resin composite is crucial for its success [26,27]. One recent clinical trial showed that the performance of repaired restorations was similar to replaced ones in terms of marginal adaptation, secondary caries, color, and anatomy [28], encouraging its indication, even though literature is still controversial in the most effective technique to perform them, mainly regarding the requirement for surface treatments [8,18,[29][30][31][32][33][34][35].…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Bonding Performance for Repairs Using Bulk Fill and Conventional Methacrylate Composites

Benzi

Pucci

Freitas

et al. 2021

International Journal of Dentistry

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This study compared the bond strength of a composite repair made with a bulk fill composite and a conventional one using different surface treatments. Specimens were prepared as truncated cones (bases: 4 mm × 2 mm, height: 4 mm) using a bulk fill (OBFa: Filtek One) or a conventional resin (FTKa: Filtek Z250) (n = 66). They were artificially aged (10,000 cycles, 5°C–55°C, 30 sec) and subdivided according to surface treatments: NT—no treatment (control), Abr—abrasion with a diamond tip, and sand—sandblasting with aluminum oxide (50 μm). Treatments were performed over the smaller diameter surface, followed by adhesive (Scothbond Universal) application. A new specimen with similar dimensions was constructed over it using either the OBF or the FTK, totaling 12 groups (n = 11). Bond strength was assessed by tensile test. The data were submitted to two-way ANOVA separately for OBFa and FTKa, followed by Tukey’s test ( p < 0.05 ). For the aged OBFa groups, there was significant differences for composite type and surface treatment, with higher values of bond strength when repaired with the same material (OBFa/OBF > OBFa/FTK), and sandblasting and bur abrasion presented higher values compared to the control group (NT). For the aged FTKa groups, there were no differences for the composite or surface treatment. Therefore, the bulk fill resin composite tested present better repair performance when the same composite was used, while the conventional resin composite was less influenced by the material and the surface treatment performed.

show abstract

“…Following the shear bond strength testing, all specimens were assessed by one trained examiner using an optical microscope (Stereomicroscope) at x25 magnification for the mode of failure which was identified as adhesive, cohesive or mixed (adhesive and cohesive) (27).…”

Section: Marginal Adaptation Testmentioning

confidence: 99%

ASSESSMENT OF SHEAR BOND STRENGH AND MARGINAL ADAPTATION OF ACTIVA VERSUS Fuji II LC IN PRIMARY MOLARS IN VITRO

El-Noueam

Hanno²,

Dowidar³

et al. 2023

Alexandria Dental Journal

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

BACKGROUND:Restoration of decayed primary molars remains a key concern in pediatric dentistry, in which proper retention, marginal seal and pulp protection are very essential in preventing secondary caries. This necessitated the development of materials such as ACTIVA BioACTIVE Restorative (ACTIVA). AIM OF THE STUDY:To assess the strength of the shear bond, bond mode of failure as well as marginal adaptation of ACTIVA in comparison to Fuji II LC when used in primary molars. MATERIALS AND METHODS:The present research is an in vitro experimental, comparative study where sixty primary extracted molars were randomly divided into two groups (A and B); each group consisted of 30 specimens. Group A was used for measuring shear bond strength and group B for measuring marginal adaptation. Group A and group B were subdivided each into three subgroups. The first subgroup received ACTIVA with no pretreatment (I). Second subgroup received ACTIVA with adhesive (II). Third subgroup received Fuji II LC (III). RESULTS: For shear bond strength, there is a significant difference between ACTIVA with adhesive (AII) and Fuji II LC (AIII) (p= 0.008). No significant differences were found between ACTIVA with no adhesive (AI) and ACTIVA with adhesive (AII) and between ACTIVA with no adhesive (AI) and Fuji II LC (AIII) {(p=0.824) and (p= 0.161) respectively}. For marginal adaptation, there is a significant difference between ACTIVA with no adhesive (BI) and ACTIVA with adhesive (BII) and between ACTIVA with adhesive (BII) and Fuji II LC (BIII) {(p=0.020) and (p<0.0001) respectively}. No significant difference was found between ACTIVA with no adhesive (BI) and Fuji II LC (BIII) (p= 0.345). CONCLUSION: ACTIVA with adhesive provided better results in comparison to ACTIVA without adhesive and Fuji II LC.

show abstract

Influence of Surface Conditioning on the Repair Strength of Bioactive Restorative Material

Cited by 6 publications

References 28 publications

Influence of commercial adhesive with/without silane on the bond strength of resin-based composite repaired within twenty-four hours

Influence of commercial adhesive with/without silane on the bond strength of resin-based composite repaired within twenty-four hours

Bonding Performance for Repairs Using Bulk Fill and Conventional Methacrylate Composites

ASSESSMENT OF SHEAR BOND STRENGH AND MARGINAL ADAPTATION OF ACTIVA VERSUS Fuji II LC IN PRIMARY MOLARS IN VITRO

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About