Cargando…

The comparison of the repair bond strength of the composite resin to direct and indirect composite restorations with different surface preparations

BACKGROUND. Indirect restorations have been employed in restorative dentistry to solve some of the drawbacks of direct restorations. The aim of this study was to evaluate the effect of different modes of a universal adhesive resin on the repair capacity of two indirect resin composites and a direct...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Bahadir, Hasibe Sevilay, Polatoğlu, Selin, Tuncer, Duygu, Çelik, Çiğdem
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Tabriz University of Medical Sciences 2023
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10462466/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/37649822
http://dx.doi.org/10.34172/joddd.2023.35422
_version_ 1785098037674115072
author Bahadir, Hasibe Sevilay
Polatoğlu, Selin
Tuncer, Duygu
Çelik, Çiğdem
author_facet Bahadir, Hasibe Sevilay
Polatoğlu, Selin
Tuncer, Duygu
Çelik, Çiğdem
author_sort Bahadir, Hasibe Sevilay
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND. Indirect restorations have been employed in restorative dentistry to solve some of the drawbacks of direct restorations. The aim of this study was to evaluate the effect of different modes of a universal adhesive resin on the repair capacity of two indirect resin composites and a direct resin composite. METHODS. Indirect composite resins (Ceramage and Gradia Plus) and a direct composite resin (Filtek Z250) were prepared in a plastic mold with a height and diameter of 2-mm and 6-mm, respectively. Composite blocks were thermocycled (5000 cycles, 5°C-55°C). Then, according to their surface treatments, composite blocks were categorized into six-groups: Group 1: ER (etch&rinse), Group 2: SE (self-etch), Group 3: Bur+ER (bur+etch&rinse), Group 4: Bur+SE (bur+self-etch), Group 5: Bur+Silane+ER (bur+silane+etch&rinse), Group 6: Bur+Silane+SE (bur+silane+self-etch), respectively. After surface treatments and adhesive application for bonding with a direct resin composite, all groups were then thermocycled before performing shear-bond-strength-test. Failure modes were evaluated using a stereomicroscope. Data were analyzed by two-way-ANOVA and Bonferroni-test (P<0.05). RESULTS. The highest bond-strength values were obtained for Bur+Silane+SE groups, while the lowest values were obtained for the Bur+Silane+ER groups for all materials. Statistically significant differences were observed between the Bur+Silane+ER group and ER, Bur+ER and Bur+Silane+SE groups in Gradia Plus (P<0.05). CONCLUSION. The self-etch-mode of the universal-adhesive and silane applications led to the increase in the repair-strength of the adhesive in the Filtek Z250 and Ceramage. The self-etch-mode of the universal-adhesive might be used to reduce adhesive-application-steps in the clinical repair procedures.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-10462466
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2023
publisher Tabriz University of Medical Sciences
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-104624662023-08-30 The comparison of the repair bond strength of the composite resin to direct and indirect composite restorations with different surface preparations Bahadir, Hasibe Sevilay Polatoğlu, Selin Tuncer, Duygu Çelik, Çiğdem J Dent Res Dent Clin Dent Prospects Original Article BACKGROUND. Indirect restorations have been employed in restorative dentistry to solve some of the drawbacks of direct restorations. The aim of this study was to evaluate the effect of different modes of a universal adhesive resin on the repair capacity of two indirect resin composites and a direct resin composite. METHODS. Indirect composite resins (Ceramage and Gradia Plus) and a direct composite resin (Filtek Z250) were prepared in a plastic mold with a height and diameter of 2-mm and 6-mm, respectively. Composite blocks were thermocycled (5000 cycles, 5°C-55°C). Then, according to their surface treatments, composite blocks were categorized into six-groups: Group 1: ER (etch&rinse), Group 2: SE (self-etch), Group 3: Bur+ER (bur+etch&rinse), Group 4: Bur+SE (bur+self-etch), Group 5: Bur+Silane+ER (bur+silane+etch&rinse), Group 6: Bur+Silane+SE (bur+silane+self-etch), respectively. After surface treatments and adhesive application for bonding with a direct resin composite, all groups were then thermocycled before performing shear-bond-strength-test. Failure modes were evaluated using a stereomicroscope. Data were analyzed by two-way-ANOVA and Bonferroni-test (P<0.05). RESULTS. The highest bond-strength values were obtained for Bur+Silane+SE groups, while the lowest values were obtained for the Bur+Silane+ER groups for all materials. Statistically significant differences were observed between the Bur+Silane+ER group and ER, Bur+ER and Bur+Silane+SE groups in Gradia Plus (P<0.05). CONCLUSION. The self-etch-mode of the universal-adhesive and silane applications led to the increase in the repair-strength of the adhesive in the Filtek Z250 and Ceramage. The self-etch-mode of the universal-adhesive might be used to reduce adhesive-application-steps in the clinical repair procedures. Tabriz University of Medical Sciences 2023 2023-07-17 /pmc/articles/PMC10462466/ /pubmed/37649822 http://dx.doi.org/10.34172/joddd.2023.35422 Text en ©2023 The Author(s). https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0 (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/) ), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium provided the original work is properly cited.
spellingShingle Original Article
Bahadir, Hasibe Sevilay
Polatoğlu, Selin
Tuncer, Duygu
Çelik, Çiğdem
The comparison of the repair bond strength of the composite resin to direct and indirect composite restorations with different surface preparations
title The comparison of the repair bond strength of the composite resin to direct and indirect composite restorations with different surface preparations
title_full The comparison of the repair bond strength of the composite resin to direct and indirect composite restorations with different surface preparations
title_fullStr The comparison of the repair bond strength of the composite resin to direct and indirect composite restorations with different surface preparations
title_full_unstemmed The comparison of the repair bond strength of the composite resin to direct and indirect composite restorations with different surface preparations
title_short The comparison of the repair bond strength of the composite resin to direct and indirect composite restorations with different surface preparations
title_sort comparison of the repair bond strength of the composite resin to direct and indirect composite restorations with different surface preparations
topic Original Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10462466/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/37649822
http://dx.doi.org/10.34172/joddd.2023.35422
work_keys_str_mv AT bahadirhasibesevilay thecomparisonoftherepairbondstrengthofthecompositeresintodirectandindirectcompositerestorationswithdifferentsurfacepreparations
AT polatogluselin thecomparisonoftherepairbondstrengthofthecompositeresintodirectandindirectcompositerestorationswithdifferentsurfacepreparations
AT tuncerduygu thecomparisonoftherepairbondstrengthofthecompositeresintodirectandindirectcompositerestorationswithdifferentsurfacepreparations
AT celikcigdem thecomparisonoftherepairbondstrengthofthecompositeresintodirectandindirectcompositerestorationswithdifferentsurfacepreparations
AT bahadirhasibesevilay comparisonoftherepairbondstrengthofthecompositeresintodirectandindirectcompositerestorationswithdifferentsurfacepreparations
AT polatogluselin comparisonoftherepairbondstrengthofthecompositeresintodirectandindirectcompositerestorationswithdifferentsurfacepreparations
AT tuncerduygu comparisonoftherepairbondstrengthofthecompositeresintodirectandindirectcompositerestorationswithdifferentsurfacepreparations
AT celikcigdem comparisonoftherepairbondstrengthofthecompositeresintodirectandindirectcompositerestorationswithdifferentsurfacepreparations