Effect of Light Sources on Bond Strength of Different Composite Resins Repaired with Bulk-Fill Composite / Efecto del tipo de fuente luz en la resistencia adhesiva de distintas resinas compuestas reparados con una resina bulk-fill

Abstract: The aim of this study was to evaluate and compare the effects of different light sources on shear bond strength when bulk-fill composite was used for the repair of different composite resins. A total of 126 samples made from six resin composites with different properties were aged (thermal-cycling with 5000 cycle), exposed to the same surface treatments and adhesive procedure. Then, they were repaired with a bulk-fill composite. At the polymerization step, each group was divided into three subgroups (n=7) and light cured with a QTH light source for 40s and two different LED light sources for 20s. Subsequently, the specimens were aged in distilled water at 37 ºC for 4 weeks and then subjected to shear bond strength test. Then, the specimens were examined under a stereomicroscope to identify modes of failure and visualized by Scanning Electron Microscope. Data obtained from the study were analyzed using ANOVA and Tukey HSD Test (α=0.05). In all groups, the light curing units had an impact on shear bond strength (p<0.05). Among the study groups, the greatest bond strength values were observed in the specimens repaired using the LED and the specimens repaired with the QTH light curing unit had the lowest bond strength values. It was concluded that the content of composite resins and light curing units may influence bond strength of different composites repaired with the bulk-fill composite.

Resumen: El objetivo de este estudio fue evaluar y comparar los efectos de diferentes fuentes de luz sobre la resistencia de la unión al cizallamiento cuando se utiliza una resina bulk-fill para la reparación de diferentes resinas compuestas. Se envejecieron un total de 126 muestras fabricadas con seis compuestos de resina con diferentes propiedades (ciclo térmico con 5000 ciclos), expuestas a los mismos tratamientos de superficie y procedimiento adhesivo. Luego, fueron reparadas con una resina bulk- fill. En el paso de polimerización, cada grupo fue dividido en tres subgrupos (n=7) y fotopolimerizado con una fuente de luz QTH por 40s y dos fuentes de luz LED por 20s. Posteriormente, los especímenes se envejecieron en agua destilada a 37 ºC durante 4 semanas y luego se sometieron a una prueba de resistencia adhesiva de cizalla. Luego, los especímenes fueron examinados bajo un estereomicroscopio para identificar los modos de falla y visualizados por el Microscopio Electrónico de Barrido. Los datos obtenidos del estudio fueron analizados usando el ANOVA y la prueba Tukey HSD (α=0.05). En todos los grupos, las unidades de fotopolimerización tuvieron un impacto en la fuerza de adhesión al cizallamiento (p<0,05). Entre los grupos de estudio, los mayores valores de fuerza de adhesión se observaron en los especímenes reparados utilizando el LED y los especímenes reparados con la unidad de fotopolimerización QTH tuvieron los valores de fuerza de adhesión más bajos. Se llegó a la conclusión de que el contenido de las resinas compuestas y las unidades de fotopolimerización pueden influir en la fuerza de adhesión de los diferentes compuestos reparados con resinas bulk-fill.

The influence of different surface treatment protocols and bonding agents on the repair microtensile bond strength of six-month' aged composite: An in vitro study / A influência de diferentes protocolos de tratamento de superfície e agentes de união na resistência de união à microtração de reparo de compósito envelhecido por seis meses: um estudo in vitro

Objective: To compare the effect of three surface treatment protocols and two intermediate agents on repairing aged composite, regarding microtensile bond strength (µTBS) and mode of fracture, at two time intervals. Material and methods: Six-monthaged microhybrid composite blocks, were randomly distributed into three groups, subjected to; Fine, Super Fine grit diamond burs or Erbium- Yag Laser surface treatment. Each block had both One Coat bond SL (Bond) and Brilliant Flow flowable composite (Flow) intermediate agents, alongside. Blocks were incrementally repaired using nanohybrid composite, cut into beams, then randomly subjected either immediately (IM) to µTBS test or after thermocycling (TC) for 5000 cycle. Mode of failure was determined using stereomicroscope. Data were analyzed through three-way ANOVA followed by pairwise comparison with Bonferroni correction. Kruskal Wallis test compared groups for failure mode analysis (α=0.05) Results: Super Fine grit showed the highest mean µTBScompared to control for both intermediate agents, IM and after TC at P<0.05. No difference between Fine grit and Laser application for all groups (P>0.05). IM, Bond showed the highest µTBS compared to TC, Flow for all tested groups. Beams roughened with Fine and Super Fine burs showed significantly lower adhesive failures than those roughened with Laser. Flow suffers significantly higher adhesive failure than those with Bond. For TC tested groups; beams with Super Fine bur and Bond showed significantly lower adhesive failure at P=0.029. Conclusion: Super Fine grit and Bond provide the highest µTBS and the least adhesive failure; moreover TC resulted in significant decrease in µTBS (AU)

Objetivo: Comparar o efeito de três protocolos de tratamento de superfície e dois agentes intermediários no reparo de compósito envelhecido, quanto à resistência à microtração (µTBS) e modo de fratura, em dois intervalos de tempo. Material e métodos: Blocos de compósito microhíbrido envelhecidos por seis meses, foram distribuídos aleatoriamente em três grupos, submetidos a; Pontas diamantadas de granulação Fina, Superfina ou tratamento de superfície com laser de Erbio-Yag. Cada bloco tinha ambos os agentes intermediários One Coat bond SL (Adesivo) ao lado de Brilliant Flow (Resina Fluida). Os blocos foram reparados de forma incremental usando compósito nanohíbrido, cortados em palitose, em seguida, submetidos aleatoriamente imediatamente (IM) ao teste de µTBS ou após termociclagem (TC) por 5000 ciclos. O modo de falha foi determinado usando estereomicroscópio. Os dados foram analisados por meio de ANOVA de três fatores, seguida de comparação pareada com correção de Bonferroni. O teste de Kruskal Wallis comparou os grupos para análise do modo de falha (α = 0,05). Resultados: a granulação Super fina apresentou a maior média de µTBS em comparação com o controle para ambos os agentes intermediários, IM e após TC (P <0,05). Não houve diferença entre granulação fina e aplicação de laser para todos os grupos (P> 0,05). IM, Adesivo apresentou a µTBS mais alta em comparação com TC, Resina Fluida para todos os grupos testados. Os palitos asperizados com pontas de granulações Fina e Superfina apresentaram falhas adesivas significativamente menores do que as asperizadas com Laser. Resina Fluida sofreu falhas adesivas significativamente maiores do que aquelas com Adesivo. Para grupos testados TC; palitos tratados com ponta Superfina e Adesivo apresentaram falha adesiva significativamente menor com P = 0,029. Conclusão: a granulação Superfina e o Adesivo fornecem a maior µTBS e o mínimo de falha adesiva; além disso, o TC resultou em uma diminuição significativa da µTBS. (AU)

Bond Strength of composite repairs using flowable, conventional resins or the association of both / Resistência de união de reparos de resinas compostas usando resinas convencionais, fluidas, ou a associação de ambas

Objectives: The aim of this in vitro study was to evaluate the effect on bond strength of composite repairs using flowable resin as an intermediate agent . Methods: Thirty truncated cones were fabricated with Grandio SO (VOCO) and were thermo-cycled for 5000 cycles for artificial aging. Specimen’s surface was sandblasted with aluminum oxide, cleaned with air/water spray and conditioned with phosphoric acid for 15 s. One coat of Admira Bond Adhesive (VOCO) was applied and light cured for 20 s. Specimens were divided into 3 groups according to the repairing material used (n = 10): Conventional Resin – Grandio SO (R), A thin layer of Flowable resin – Grandio SO Heavy Flow + conventional Resin (FR), and Flowable resin (F). Over the original specimens, a sectional cone-shaped teflon matrix was hold in position and the cones were built according the groups described above. Other thirty specimens were built, 10 of each group, simulating a restoration without repair. Specimens were submitted to tensile stress in a universal testing machine. Data were recorded in MPa and evaluated with ANOVA, Tukey´ s and non-paired “t’’ tests. Results: ANOVA showed significant differences among groups in which repair was performed (p < 0.00). The results of Tukey´ s test for those groups were: R (19.89 + 5.31)ab; F+R (14.49 + 5.59)a; F (20.91 + 3.99)b. The groups followed by the same letter did not show statistical differences. Non-paired “t” test showed that groups R and F repairs were similar to the correspondent groups simulating restoration without repair. Conclusions: The repair with conventional or flowable composite produced bond strength values similar to cohesive strength of the same materials. The use of a thin layer of flowable resin as an intermediate agent in composite repair decreased the bond strength when compared the same method for restoration.

Objetivos: O objetivo deste estudo in vitro foi avaliar o efeito sobre a resistência de união de reparos de compósitos com resina fluida como um agente intermediário. Métodos: Trinta cones truncados foram fabricados com Grandio SO (VOCO) e foram termociclados por 5.000 ciclos de envelhecimento artificial. A superfície da amostra foi jateada com óxido de alumínio, limpa com spray ar / água e condicionada com ácido fosfórico por 15 s. Uma camada de adesivo (Admira - VOCO) foi aplicada e fotopolimerizada por 20 s. As amostras foram divididas em três grupos de acordo com o material de reparo utilizado (n=10): resina convencional - Grandio SO (R), uma fina camada de resina flowable - Grandio SO Heavy Flow + Resina convencional (FR), e resina flowable (F). Sobre espécimes originais, foi adaptada uma matriz, e os cones foram construídos de acordo com os grupos descritos acima. Trinta amostras foram construídos, 10 de cada grupo, simulando uma restauração sem reparos. As amostras foram submetidas ao Teste de tração em uma máquina universal de ensaios. Os dados foram registrados em MPa e avaliados com ANOVA, Tukey e teste “t’’ não pareado. Resultados: ANOVA mostrou diferenças significativas entre os grupos em que o reparo foi realizado (p < 0,00). Os resultados do teste de Tukey para os grupos foram: R (19,89 + 5,31) ab; F + R (14,49 + 5,59) a; F (20,91 + 3,99) b. Os grupos seguidos pela mesma letra não apresentaram diferenças estatísticas. O Teste “t” não pareado de Student mostrou que as reparações dos grupos R e F foram semelhantes aos dos grupos correspondentes que simulam restauração sem reparos. Conclusões: O reparo com resina flowable ou convencional produziu níveis de resistência próximos a força coesiva dos mesmos materiais. A utilização de uma camada fina de resina fluida como um agente intermediário no reparo dos compósitos diminuiu a resistência de união, quando comparado o mesmo método para a restauração.

The study of fractural behavior of repaired composite / 대한치과보존학회지

OBJECTIVES: This study evaluated microtensile bond strength (microTBS) and short-rod fracture toughness to explain fractural behavior of repaired composite restorations according to different surface treatments. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Thirty composite blocks for microTBS test and sixty short-rod specimens for fracture toughness test were fabricated and were allocated to 3 groups according to the combination of surface treatment (none-treated, sand blasting, bur roughening). Each group was repaired immediately and 2 weeks later. Twenty-four hours later from repair, microTBS and fracture toughness test were conducted. Mean values analyzed with two-way ANOVA / Tukey's B test (alpha = 0.05) and correlation analysis was done between microTBS and fracture toughness. FE-SEM was employed on fractured surface to examine the crack propagation. RESULTS: The fresh composite resin showed higher microTBS than the aged composite resin (p < 0.001). Mechanically treated groups showed higher bond strength than non-mechanically treated groups except none-treated fresh group in microTBS (p < 0.05). The fracture toughness value of mechanically treated surface was higher than that of non-mechanically treated surface (p < 0.05). There was no correlation between fracture toughness and microtensile bond strength values. Specimens having high KIC showed toughening mechanism including crack deviation, microcracks and crack bridging in FE-SEM. CONCLUSIONS: Surface treatment by mechanical interlock is more important for effective composite repair, and the fracture toughness test could be used as an appropriate tool to examine the fractural behavior of the repaired composite with microtensile bond strength.

The effect of different bonding systems on shear bond strength of repaired composite resin / 대한치과보존학회지

The purpose of this study is to compare the shear bond strength of repaired composite resin with different bonding agents and evaluate the effect of bonding agents on composite repair strength. Forty composite specimens (Z-250) were prepared and aged for 1week by thermocycling between 5 and 55degrees C with a dwell time of 30s. After air abrasion with 50 microm aluminum oxide, following different bonding agents were applied (n = 10); SB group: Scotchbond multipurpose adhesive (3 step Total-Etch system); SE group: Clearfil SE bond (2 step Self-Etch system); XP group: XP bond (2 step Total-Etch system); XE group: XenoIII (1 step Self-Etch system). After bonding procedure was completed, new composite resin (Z-250) was applied to the mold and cured. For control group, 10 specimens were prepared. Seven days after repair, shear bond strength was measured. Data was statistically analyzed using one-way ANOVA and Tukey's test (p < 0.05). The means and standard deviations of shear bond strength (MPa +/- S.D.) per group were as follows: SB group: 17.06; SE group: 19.10; XP group: 14.44; XE group: 13.57; Control Group: 19.40. No significant difference found in each group. Within the limit of this study, it was concluded that the different type of bonding system was not affect on the shear bond strength of repaired composite resin.