International Journal of Prosthodontics and Restorative Dentistry

Register      Login

SEARCH WITHIN CONTENT

FIND ARTICLE

Volume / Issue

Online First

Archive
Volume  14 (2024)
Volume  13 (2023)
Volume  12 (2022)
Volume  11 (2021)
Volume  10 (2020)
Volume  9 (2019)
Volume  8 (2018)
Volume  7 (2017)
Volume  6 (2016)
Volume  5 (2015)
Volume  4 (2014)
Volume  3 (2013)
Volume  2 (2012)
Volume  1 (2011)
Related articles

VOLUME 12 , ISSUE 3 ( July-September, 2022 ) > List of Articles

ORIGINAL RESEARCH

Comparative Evaluation of Effect of Different Surface Pretreatments on Bond Strengths of Thermocycled Composite and Amalgam Rerestored with Composite Resin: An In Vitro Study

Anjali Sharma, Pankaj Mishra, Saket Jain, Sushil Kishnani

Keywords : Air abrasion, Amalgam, Composite, Metal bond, Repair, Silane coupling agent

Citation Information : Sharma A, Mishra P, Jain S, Kishnani S. Comparative Evaluation of Effect of Different Surface Pretreatments on Bond Strengths of Thermocycled Composite and Amalgam Rerestored with Composite Resin: An In Vitro Study. Int J Prosthodont Restor Dent 2022; 12 (3):125-132.

DOI: 10.5005/jp-journals-10019-1380

License: CC BY-NC 4.0

Published Online: 30-03-2023

Copyright Statement:  Copyright © 2022; The Author(s).


Abstract

Purpose: The purpose of this in vitro study was to evaluate the effect of different surface pretreatment methods on bond strengths of aged composite and aged amalgam rerestored with composite resin. Materials and methods: A total of 72 specimens measuring 5 × 5 × 3 mm were fabricated. A total of 36 composite resin specimens and 36 amalgam specimens were fabricated using customized metallic molds. All the samples were artificially aged by thermocycling (5,000 cycles, 5°–55°C) and then stored in artificial saliva for 1 month. The specimens were divided into six groups (each having 12 specimens) based on different surface treatments (group I—aged composite treated with diamond bur; group II—aged composite treated with diamond bur and silane coupling agent; group III—aged composite treated with air abrasion and silane coupling agent; group IV—aged amalgam treated with diamond bur; group V—aged amalgam treated with diamond bur, metal bond, and silane coupling agent; and group VI—aged amalgam treated with air abrasion metal bond and silane coupling agent). All specimens were then rerestored with composite restoration and again kept for thermocycling. The specimen was tested under universal testing machine for shear bond strength. Statistical analysis was done using analysis of variance (ANOVA) and post hoc analysis. Results: Aged composite treated with air abrasion and silane coupling agent (group III) exhibited the maximum bond strength with a mean of 52.3385 ± 10.656 MPa, followed by aged composite treated with diamond bur and silane coupling agent (group II) with a mean of 50.653 ± 13.182 MPa. The least strength was displayed in aged amalgam treated with diamond bur (group IV) with a mean of 26.3 ± 9.421. One-way ANOVA showed statistically significant difference (p = 0.001) among the groups. Conclusion: Aged composite treated with air abrasion and silane coupling agents increases the bond strength of the repaired composite efficiently. Mechanical surface treatment of aged amalgam along with silane coupling agent and metal bond in cases amalgam repair with composite also improves the bond strength and can be a better alternative in such cases.

HTML PDF Share
  1. Balkaya H, Demirbuga S, Çakir NN, et al. Micro-shear bond strength of universal adhesives used for amalgam repair with or without Alloy Primer. J Conserv Dent 2018;21(3):274–279. DOI: 10.4103/JCD.JCD_290_17
  2. Staxrud F, Mulic A. Bonding of composite and glass-ionomer to amalgam. J Dent Oral Biol 2018;3(6);1145.
  3. Dieckmann P, Baur A, Dalvai V, et al. Effect of composite age on the repair bond strength after different mechanical surface pretreatments. J Adhes Dent 2020;22(4):365–372. DOI: 10.3290/j.jad.a44867
  4. Rajkumar B, Bhagwat SV. Amalgam-Composite hybrid restorations with amalgam bond: an in vitro marginal leakage study with CA45 radioisotope autoradiography. J Indian Prosthodont Soc 2005;5(2):94. DOI: 10.4103/0972-4052.16878
  5. Mobarak EH. Effect of surface roughness and adhesive system on repair potential of silorane-based resin composite. J Adv Res 2012;3(3):279–286. DOI: 10.1016/j.jare.2011.09.003
  6. Cavalcanti AN, De Lima AF, Peris AR, et al. Effect of surface treatments and bonding agents on the bond strength of repaired composites. J Esthet Restor Dent 2007;19(2):90–98. DOI: 10.1111/j.1708-8240.2007.00073.x
  7. Fernandez E, Martin J, Vildosola P, et al. Can repair increase the useful life of composite resins? Clinical trial: triple-blind controlled - 10 year follow-up. J Dent 2014;14:18–26. DOI: 10.1016/j.jdent.2014.05.015
  8. Bader JD, Shugars DA, Martin JA. Risk indicators for posterior tooth fracture. J Am Dent Assoc 2004;135(7):883–892. DOI: 10.14219/jada.archive.2004.0334
  9. Bernardo M, Luis H, Martin MD, et al. Survival and reasons for failure of amalgam versus composite posterior restorations placed in a randomized clinical trial. J Am Dent Assoc 2007;138(6):775–783. DOI: 10.14219/jada.archive.2007.0265
  10. Gordan VV, Shen C, Riley 3rd J, et al. Two-year clinical evaluation of repair versus replacement of composite restorations. J Esthet Restor Dent 2006;18(3):144–153. DOI: 10.1111/j.1708-8240.2006.00007.x
  11. Gordan VV, Riley 3rd JL, Blaser PK, et al. 2-year clinical evaluation of alternative treatments to replacement of defective amalgam restorations. Oper Dent 2006;31(4):418–425. DOI: 10.2341/05-112
  12. Ozcan M. The use of chairside silica coating for different dental applications: a clinical report. J Prosthet Dent 2002;87(5):469–472. DOI: 10.1067/mpr.2002.124365
  13. Shen C, Speigel J, Mjör IA. Repair strength of dental amalgams. Oper Dent 2006;31(1):122–126. DOI: 10.2341/04-205
  14. Versluis A, Tantbirojn D, Douglas WH. Why do shear bond tests pull out dentin? J Dent Res 1997;76(6):1298–1307. DOI: 10.1177/00220345970760061001
  15. Kanzow P, Baxter S, Rizk M, et al. Effectiveness of a universal adhesive for repair bonding to composite and amalgam. J Oral Sci 2019;61(2):343–350. DOI: 10.2334/josnusd.18-0301
  16. Wendler M, Belli R, Panzer R, et al. Repair bond strength of aged resin composite after different surface and bonding treatments. Materials (Basel) 2016;9(7):547. DOI: 10.3390/ma9070547
  17. Rosales-Leal JI, Osorio R, Holgado-Terriza JA, et al. Dentin wetting by four adhesive systems. Dent Mater 2001;17(6):526–532. DOI: 10.1016/s0109-5641(01)00014-8
  18. Alex G. Universal adhesives: the next evolution in adhesive dentistry. Compend Contin Educ Dent 2015;36(1):15–26.
  19. Rathke A, Tymina Y, Haller B. Effect of different surface treatments on the composite-composite repair bond strength. Clin Oral Investig 2009;13(3):317–323. DOI: 10.1007/s00784-008-0228-2
  20. Kuşdemir M, Yüzbasioglu E, Toz-Akalın T, et al. Does Al2O3 airborne particle abrasion improve repair bond strength of universal adhesives to aged and non-aged nanocomposites? J Adhes Sci Technol 2021;35(21):2275–2287. DOI: 10.1080/01694243.2021.1882779
  21. Giannini M, Paulillo LA, Ambrosano GM. Effect of surface roughness on amalgam repair using adhesive systems. Braz Dent J 2002;13(3):179–183. DOI: 10.1590/s0103-64402002000300007
  22. Stape THS, Tulkki O, Salim IA, et al. Composite repair: on the fatigue strength of universal adhesives. Dent Mater 2022;38(2):231–241. DOI: 10.1016/j.dental.2021.12.003
  23. Cuevas-Suárez CE, Nakanishi L, Isolan CP, et al. Repair bond strength of bulk-fill resin composite: effect of different adhesive protocols. Dent Mater J 2020;39(2):2018–2091. DOI: 10.4012/dmj.2018-291
  24. Fornazari IA, Brum RT, Rached RN, et al. Reliability and correlation between microshear and microtensile bond strength tests of composite repairs. J Mech Behav Biomed Mater 2020;103:103607. DOI: 10.1016/j.jmbbm.2019.103607
PDF Share
PDF Share

© Jaypee Brothers Medical Publishers (P) LTD.