Logo-ajdr
Submitted: 25 Apr 2022
Revision: 26 Nov 2022
Accepted: 26 Nov 2022
ePublished: 30 Sep 2023
EndNote EndNote

(Enw Format - Win & Mac)

BibTeX BibTeX

(Bib Format - Win & Mac)

Bookends Bookends

(Ris Format - Mac only)

EasyBib EasyBib

(Ris Format - Win & Mac)

Medlars Medlars

(Txt Format - Win & Mac)

Mendeley Web Mendeley Web
Mendeley Mendeley

(Ris Format - Win & Mac)

Papers Papers

(Ris Format - Win & Mac)

ProCite ProCite

(Ris Format - Win & Mac)

Reference Manager Reference Manager

(Ris Format - Win only)

Refworks Refworks

(Refworks Format - Win & Mac)

Zotero Zotero

(Ris Format - Firefox Plugin)

Avicenna J Dent Res. 2023;15(3): 97-102.
doi: 10.34172/ajdr.1611
  Abstract View: 481
  PDF Download: 213

Original Article

Comparison of Repair Bond Strength of Bulk-fill and Conventional Composites With Different Bonding Systems

Hafez Vahedpour 1 ORCID logo, Hamid Tavakkoli 2 ORCID logo, Zohreh Mousavi 3* ORCID logo

1 Assistant Professor, Department of Restorative Dentistry, School of Dentistry, Urmia University of Medical Sciences, Urmia, Iran
2 Postgraduate Student, Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Radiology, School of Dentistry, Hamadan University of Medical Sciences, Hamadan, Iran
3 Oral & Maxillofacial Radiology,Urmia University of Medical Sciences, Urmia, Iran
*Corresponding Author: Zohreh Mousavi, Email: zohrehdentist70@yahoo.com

Abstract

Background: One of the advantages of resin composites as a restorative material is their repairability. The purpose of the current study was to compare the repair bond strength of conventional and bulk-fill composites with different bonding systems.

Methods: In this in vitro study, sixty cylindrical specimens of materials were prepared according to the six groups under study (two types of conventional Gradia Direct and N-Ceram Bulk-Fill Tetric composites and three bonding systems: Single Bond Universal and Clearfil SE Bond and Single Bond 2). The samples were divided into 6 groups of 10 Single Bond/Gradia Direct composite (G1), Single Bond/Tetric N-Ceram bulk-fill composite (G2), Clearfil SE bond/Gradia Direct (G3), Clearfil SE Bond/Tetric N-Ceram bulk-fill composite (G4), single bond universal/Gradia Direct composite (G5), and Single Bond Universal/Tetric N-Ceram bulk-fill composite (G6). Repair bond strength in each group was measured using the Universal Testing Machine (Hounsfield). All data were analyzed by SPSS 21 using ANOVA, Student’s t-test, and chi-square statistical tests (P<0.05).

Results: The highest and lowest bond strength (15.81±2.44 and 14.02±1.57, respectively) belonged to the Clearfil SE Bond-Tetric N-Ceram and Single Bond (Etch & Rinse)-Gradia Direct groups, respectively. The ANOVA test results demonstrated no significant difference in the bonding strengths of the study groups (P=0.537).

Conclusions: Bulk-fill composite Tetric N-Ceram, apart from the bonding system, had higher repair bond strength compared to the conventional Gradia Direct composite. It seems that self-etch bonding systems (Clearfil SE Bond and Single Bond Universal) have had more bond strength than etch and rinse bonding (Single Bond 2 bonds).


Please cite this article as follows: Vahedpour H, Tavakkoli H, Mousavi Z. Comparison of repair bond strength of bulk-fill and conventional composites with different bonding systems. Avicenna J Dent Res. 2023; 15(3):97-102. doi:10.34172/ajdr.1611
First Name
 
Last Name
 
Email Address
 
Comments
 
Security code


Abstract View: 444

Your browser does not support the canvas element.


PDF Download: 213

Your browser does not support the canvas element.