ABSTRACT
OBJECTIVE: Repairing composite restorations may be a more conservative treatment than replacing the entire restoration. The objective of this in vitro study was to determine the best repair method by measuring flexural, diametral tensile, and shear bond strength of repaired composites in which the surfaces were treated with chemical primers (Add & Bond or Silane Bond Enhancer), a bonding agent (Optibond Solo Plus [OBSP]), or mechanical retention with a bonding agent. METHODS: Filtek Supreme Ultra shade B1B was placed in special molds to fabricate specimens that served to test the flexural, diametral tensile, or shear strength of the inherent resin substrate. The same molds were modified to make specimens for testing repair strength of the resin. Repairs were made immediately or after aging in deionized water at 37°C for seven days. All repair sites were finished with coarse Sof-Lex discs to simulate finishing new restorations or partially removing aged restorations. Repair surfaces were treated with one of the following: 1) phosphoric-acid etching and OBSP; 2) Add & Bond; 3) phosphoric-acid etching, Silane Bond Enhancer, and OBSP; or 4) quarter round bur, phosphoric-acid etching, and OBSP. Specimens were placed back in the original molds to fabricate specimens for diametral tensile or flexural testing or in an Ultradent jig to make specimens for shear bond testing. Composite resin in shade B5B was polymerized against the treated surfaces to make repairs. Two negative control groups for the three testing methods consisted of specimens in which repairs were made immediately or after aging without any surface treatments. Controls and experimental repairs were aged (water 37°C, 24 hours) before flexural, diametral tensile, or shear testing in an Instron Universal testing machine at a crosshead speed of 0.5 mm/min. RESULTS: Experimental flexural repair strengths ranged from 26.4% to 88.6% of the inherent substrate strength. Diametral tensile repair strengths ranged from 40% to 80% of the inherent substrate strength, and shear bond strength repairs ranged from 56% to 102%. Geometric means were statistically analyzed with two-way analysis of variance on their log-transformed values. Significant differences were determined using Tukey honestly significant difference (p<0.05). CONCLUSIONS: Depending on the mechanical property being tested, surface treatments produced different results. OBSP produced more consistent results than chemical primers.
