Abstract
Objective
This study aimed to evaluate the effects of different universal adhesives and surface treatments on the repair bond strength between resin composites.
Materials and Methods
A total of 220 composite samples were divided into three groups according to the adhesive resin to be applied: 1) Scotchbond Universal, 2) G-Premio Bond, and 3) Peak Universal Bond. They were then divided into seven subgroups according to surface treatments (n = 10): A) air abrasion, B) air abrasion+silane, C) hydrofluoric acid, D) hydrofluoric acid+silane, E) air abrasion+hydrofluoric acid+silane, F) silane, and G) no surface treatment (negative control). After surface treatment, a repair composite was applied. Samples aged in the thermocycle were subjected to micro-tensile bond strength testing. Cohesive strength values of 10 non-aged composite blocks were used as a positive control. Kruskal–Wallis and one-way ANOVA tests were used for statistical evaluation. Fractured surfaces were evaluated using a scanning electron microscope.
Results
In Scotchbond Universal and G-Premio Bond, the mean micro-tensile bond strength value of the no surface treatment subgroup was significantly lower than that of the positive control. All subgroups of Peak Universal Bond showed similar values to the positive control.
Conclusion
While Scotchbond Universal and G-Premio Bond required mechanical roughening before adhesive application, Peak Universal Bond did not require any surface treatment.
Clinical Significance
Different universal adhesives may show different repair bonding strengths with different surface treatments. Since achieving a standard in this regard can be associated with many independent factors, clinicians should determine how to apply the adhesive they use most effectively with the most appropriate surface treatment based on their own clinical experience.
No comments:
Post a Comment