Bond Strengths of Repaired Direct Composites Using Three Surface Treatments

Objective: Determine the microtensile bond strengths for two types of aged direct composite when repaired using three different surface treatments.

Methods: Six 12mm x 12mm x 3mm samples of composite were fabricated, three with microfilled composite (Epic-TMPT, Parkell) (Group1A,1B,1C), and three with micro-hybrid composite (Filtec Z250, 3M/ESPE) (Group 2A,2B,2C). Each sample was aged, and a 3mm repair layer of composite was added using one of three different bonding techniques. The surface preparation techniques examined were; Group1A and 2A, diamond bur and resin bonding, Group1B and 2B, diamond bur, air-abrasion with 50-um A1₂O₃ particles, and application of 10% Silane, and Group1C and 2C, diamond bur and a new adhesive composite primer (ACP) designed for composite repair, “Add&Bond”(Parkell). After surface preparation, the samples were immediately repaired, and thermocycled 1000x at 5 and 55C. The samples were sectioned longitudinally creating 1mm x 1mm x 6mm sticks. Microtensile bond strengths were determined on an Instron universal testing machine, crosshead speed of 1.0 mm/minute.

Results: In the microfill samples, group 1A, prepared with the bonding agent alone (35.39MPa), and group 1B, air-abrasion and silanation prior to adding the bonding agent (36.63MPa) were not statistically different. The ACP group 1C (47.01MPa) displayed significantly improved bond strength.

In the micro-hybrid samples, group 2A, bonding agent alone, (40.30MPa) was outperformed by both the air-abraded and bonded group 2B (59.86MPa) and the ACP group 2C (64.50MPa). Group 2B and 2C were statistically equivalent. Data analyzed with ANOVA and Tukey's HSD post hoc test.

Conclusion: When repaired with a bonding agent alone (1A & 2A), the bond strengths were not statistically different for the microfill and micro-hybrid composites. Air-abrasion and silanation did not improve the bond in the microfill(1B), but significantly increased the bond in the micro-hybrid(2B). The most improvement for both groups was achieved using ACP (1C &2C).

*1339 Bond Strengths of Repaired Direct Composites Using Three Surface Treatments*
J.B. JORDEN, U.S. Navy Dental Corps, Lackland Air Force Base, San Antonio, TX, USA, J. LINDEMUTH, U.S. Air Force Dental Service, Lackland AFB, TX, USA, and J. OVERTON, University of Texas Health Sciences Center Dental School San Antonio, USA *Objective:* Determine the microtensile bond strengths for two types of aged direct composite when repaired using three different surface treatments. *Methods:* Six 12mm x 12mm x 3mm samples of composite were fabricated, three with microfilled composite (Epic-TMPT, Parkell) (Group1A,1B,1C), and three with micro-hybrid composite (Filtec Z250, 3M/ESPE) (Group 2A,2B,2C). Each sample was aged, and a 3mm repair layer of composite was added using one of three different bonding techniques. The surface preparation techniques examined were; Group1A and 2A, diamond bur and resin bonding, Group1B and 2B, diamond bur, air-abrasion with 50-um A1₂O₃ particles, and application of 10% Silane, and Group1C and 2C, diamond bur and a new adhesive composite primer (ACP) designed for composite repair, “Add&Bond”(Parkell). After surface preparation, the samples were immediately repaired, and thermocycled 1000x at 5 and 55C. The samples were sectioned longitudinally creating 1mm x 1mm x 6mm sticks. Microtensile bond strengths were determined on an Instron universal testing machine, crosshead speed of 1.0 mm/minute. *Results:* In the microfill samples, group 1A, prepared with the bonding agent alone (35.39MPa), and group 1B, air-abrasion and silanation prior to adding the bonding agent (36.63MPa) were not statistically different. The ACP group 1C (47.01MPa) displayed significantly improved bond strength. In the micro-hybrid samples, group 2A, bonding agent alone, (40.30MPa) was outperformed by both the air-abraded and bonded group 2B (59.86MPa) and the ACP group 2C (64.50MPa). Group 2B and 2C were statistically equivalent. Data analyzed with ANOVA and Tukey's HSD post hoc test. *Conclusion:* When repaired with a bonding agent alone (1A & 2A), the bond strengths were not statistically different for the microfill and micro-hybrid composites. Air-abrasion and silanation did not improve the bond in the microfill(1B), but significantly increased the bond in the micro-hybrid(2B). The most improvement for both groups was achieved using ACP (1C &2C).
Seq #158 - Composite Repair, Biocompatibility, Adhesive Interfaces 3:00 PM-4:00 PM, Friday, 10 March 2006 Dolphin Hotel Pacific Hall
Back to the Dental Materials: II - Adhesion-Other Program Back to the ADEA/AADR/CADR Meeting & Exhibition (March 8-11, 2006)
Top Level Search