Logo-ajdr
Submitted: 09 Jan 2019
Accepted: 27 Feb 2019
ePublished: 30 Mar 2019
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. 2019;11(1): 30-36.
doi: 10.34172/ajdr.2019.06
  Abstract View: 1485
  PDF Download: 965

Original Article

Comparison the Effect of Different Surface Treatments on Shear Bond Strength of Repaired Composite

Mohadeseh Shokripor 1 ORCID logo, Loghman Rezaei Soufi 2, Banafsheh Ahmadi 3* ORCID logo, Emira Najafrad 3, Masoud Azizian Mosleh 4

1 Assistant Professor, Department of Restorative Dentistry, Dental School, Hamadan University of Medical Sciences, Hamadan, Iran
2 Associate Professor, Department of Restorative Dentistry, Dental School, Hamadan University of Medical Sciences, Hamadan, Iran.
3 Postgraduate student of Restorative Dentistry, Dental School, Hamadan University of Medical Sciences, Hamadan, Iran.
4 General Dentist.
*Corresponding Author: Email: dr_ahmadi.b@yahoo.com

Abstract

Background: Repairing aged composite resin is a challenging process. Many surface treatment options have been proposed to this end. This study evaluated the effect of different surface treatments on the shear bond strength (SBS) of microhybrid composite resin repairs.

Methods: Sixty-four cylindrical specimens of a Filtek Z2503M composite resin were fabricated and stored in 37°C distilled water for two weeks. The specimens were divided into 8 groups according to the following surface treatments: composite primer (group 1); composite primer + G-premio (group 2); composite primer + SE bond (group 3); roughening with coarse-grit diamond bur + composite primer + G-premio (group 4); roughening with coarse-grit diamond bur + composite primer + SE bond (group 5); Er,Cr:YSG + G premio (group 6) Er,Cr:YSG + Se bond (group 7); bulk composite (positive control group). Then the same composite resins were packed on specimens into layers. After being stored in distilled water for 24 hours, specimens were thermocycled. The SBS of the resin composites were tested with a universal test machine. Data was analyzed using one-way ANOVA and Tukey test (P < 0.05).

Results: One-way ANOVA indicated no significant differences between groups 2, 3, 4, 5, 7 and control group. SBS of group 1 and 6 was significantly lower than control group. Surface treatment with diamond bur + composite primer + SE bond resulted in the highest bond strength.

Conclusions: Surface roughening with bur and using sixth generation adhesives (SE bond) and eighth generation bonding agents (G-premio) and laser with sixth generation indicated similar result to intact composite, although use of composite primer did not lead to acceptable bond strength for repairing composite. However Clearfil SE bond show highest bond strength.


Citation: Shokripor M, Rezaei Soufi L, Ahmadi B, Najafrad E, Azizian Mosleh M. Comparison the effect of different surface treatments on shear bond strength of repaired composite. Avicenna J Dent Res. 2019;11(1):30-36. doi: 10.15171/ajdr.2019.30.
First Name
Last Name
Email Address
Comments
Security code


Abstract View: 1486

Your browser does not support the canvas element.


PDF Download: 965

Your browser does not support the canvas element.