The Effect of Morpholine on Composite-to-Composite Repair Strength Contaminated with Saliva

Abstract

The aim of this study was to specifically explore the effects of morpholine on chemical surface treatments of aged resin composites contaminated with saliva to new resin composite repair strength. One hundred and thirty five resin composite specimens were fabricated and thermocycled to replicate an aged resin composite. These aged resin composites were randomly separated into nine groups (n = 15) depending on the various surface contaminants and surface treatment techniques. These groups were as follows: group 1—no surface treatment; group 2—no saliva + adhesive agent; group 3—no saliva + morpholine + adhesive agent; group 4—no saliva + morpholine; group 5—saliva; group 6—saliva + adhesive agent; group 7—saliva + morpholine + adhesive agent; group 8—saliva + morpholine; and group 9—saliva + phosphoric acid + adhesive agent. A mold was covered on the top of the specimen center and then filled with resin composite. The shear bond strengths and failure modes were examined. The collected data was analyzed using one-way ANOVA, and the significance level was determined using Tukey’s test. Group 5 (3.31 ± 0.95 MPa) and group 6 (4.05 ± 0.93 MPa) showed the lowest bond strength statistically, while group 3 (23.66 ± 1.35 MPa) and group 7 (22.88 ± 1.96 MPa) showed the most significantly high bond strength. The bond strength in group 2 (16.41 ± 1.22 MPa) was significantly different from that in group 1 (9.83 ± 1.13 MPa), group 4 (10.71 ± 0.81 MPa), and group 8 (10.36 ± 1.53 MPa), while group 9’s (17.31 ± 1.48 MPa) SBS was not significantly different. In conclusion, the application of morpholine on aged resin composite with or without contamination with saliva prior to the application of the adhesive agent increased the bond strength of aged resin composite repaired with new resin composite (p < 0.05).

The Effect of Different Chemical Surface Treatments on the Bond Strength of Resin-Matrix Ceramic Repaired with Resin Composite

“…Three patterns are used as a classification system for the fracture failure types in certain features of the shown failure mode [11][12][13][14] : (i) a pattern of adhesive failure that appears when the resin-matrix ceramic and resin composite are broken at the interface; (ii) a cohesive failure mode inside the resin-matrix ceramic that breaks; and (iii) a mixed failure mode that results from combining cohesive and adhesive failure modes. In this investigation, adhesive failure was found in all specimens in group 1 (►Fig.…”

“…The fracture mode patterns of resin-matrix ceramic and resin composites were inspected by a stereomicroscope at x50 magnification. To categorize the fracture modes, three patterns were employed [11][12][13][14] (i) an adhesive pattern (fracture on the interface between resin-matrix ceramic and resin composite), (ii) a cohesive pattern (fracture in resin-matrix ceramic or resin composite), and (iii) a mixed pattern (combined adhesive and cohesive failure patterns).…”

Surface Modification Methods of Self-Cured Acrylic Resin Repaired with Resin Composite Using a Universal Adhesive

“…In certain aspects of the observed failure pattern. Three patterns were used to classify the fracture failure modes [11][12][13][14]: (a) an adhesive failure mode pattern when broken at the junction between acrylic resin and resin composite, (b) a cohesive failure mode pattern when broken within the acrylic resin or resin composite, and (c) a mixed failure mode pattern when combined with adhesive failure mode patterns and cohesive failure mode patterns. It was noted that all specimens belonging to Groups 1 and 2 exhibited adhesive failure.…”

“…The fracture failure mode patterns of both self-cured acrylic resin and resin composites were subjected to detailed examination using a scanning electron microscope (SEM) with a magnification of ×1000 (Versa 3D, FEI Company, Hillsboro, OR, USA). Three patterns were used to classify the fracture failure modes [11][12][13][14]:…”