Repair Adhesive Strength of Conventional and Bulk Fill Resins Using Different Bonding Techniques

Autores

  • Wilian Segatto Zanelli Universidade Estadual de Campinas, School of Dentistry of Piracicaba, Department of Restorative Dentistry. SP, Brazil.
  • Mariana Dias Flor-Ribeiro Universidade Estadual de Campinas, School of Dentistry of Piracicaba, Department of Restorative Dentistry. SP, Brazil.
  • Rodrigo Barros Esteves Universidade Estadual de Campinas, School of Dentistry of Piracicaba, Department of Restorative Dentistry. SP, Brazil.
  • Luís Roberto Marcondes Martins Universidade Estadual de Campinas, School of Dentistry of Piracicaba, Department of Restorative Dentistry. SP, Brazil.
  • Flávio Henrique Baggio Aguiar Universidade Estadual de Campinas, School of Dentistry of Piracicaba, Department of Restorative Dentistry. SP, Brazil.
  • Giselle Maria Marchi Universidade Estadual de Campinas, School of Dentistry of Piracicaba, Department of Restorative Dentistry. SP, Brazil.

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.17921/2447-8938.2021v22n3p185-190

Resumo

Abstract
This research aimed to evaluate the bond strength by micro tensile strength (µTBS), elastic modulus (EM) and flexural strength (FS) by the three-point test using three types of composite resins: Charisma Diamond, Filtek Z350 and Tetric N-Ceram Bulk Fill; and three adhesion techniques: adhesive, silane, silane and adhesive. The combinations of each resin with the adhesive technique resulted in nine groups (n = 12). Initially, with the composites, EM and FS tests were performed. Sequentially, each fragment was repaired with the different adhesive systems. All samples were subjected to µTBS testing on a universal assay machine. Data were subjected to the normality test and the parametric ANOVA test. Charisma resin showed the highest values in EM and RF compared to the other composite resins (p <0.05). The highest µTBS value was for silane + adhesive repaired Charisma resin. The lowest µTBS values were in Bulk Fill resin, regardless of adhesive system. The EM and FS results showed that Filtek Z350 resins had the best results, while bulk fill resins had lower results. It was concluded that Charisma and Filtek Z350 resins presented better results. However, in the bulk fill group, the lowest mean values of µTBS, FS and EM were obtained, as well as the lowest value in EM.
Keywords: Composite Resins. Adhesives. Flexural Strength.
Resumo
Esta pesquisa teve como objetivo avaliar a resistência de união (RU) por resistência à microtração, módulo de elasticidade (ME) e resistência à flexão (RF) pelo teste de três pontos, utilizando três tipos de resinas compostas: Charisma Diamond, Filtek Z350 e Tetric N-Ceram Bulk Fill; e três técnicas de adesão: adesivo, silano, silano e adesivo. As combinações de cada resina com a técnica adesiva resultaram nove grupos (n= 12). Inicialmente, com os compósitos foram realizados testes de ME e RF. Sequencialmente, cada fragmento foi reparado com os diferentes sistemas adesivos. Todas as amostras foram submetidas ao teste de RU por microtração em uma máquina de ensaio universal. Os dados foram submetidos ao teste de normalidade e ao teste paramétrico ANOVA. A resina Charisma apresentou os maiores valores no ME e RF em relação às demais resinas compostas (p <0,05). O maior valor de RU foi para a resina Charisma reparada com silano + adesivo. Os menores valores de RU foram na resina Bulk Fill, independentemente do sistema adesivo. Os resultados no ME e RF mostraram que as resinas Filtek Z350 obtiveram os melhores resultados, enquanto as resinas bulk fill obtiveram resultados inferiores. Conclui-se que as resinas Charisma e Filtek Z350 apresentaram melhores resultados. Entretanto, no grupo de bulk fill obteve se as menores médias de RU, RF e ME, bem como o menor valor no ME.
Palavras-chave: Resinas Compostas. Adesivos. Resistência à Flexão.

Biografia do Autor

Flávio Henrique Baggio Aguiar, Universidade Estadual de Campinas, School of Dentistry of Piracicaba, Department of Restorative Dentistry. SP, Brazil.



Referências

Sharif MO, Catleugh M, Merry A, Tickle M, Dunne SM, Brunton P et al. Replacement versus repair of defective restorations in adults: resin composite. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2014 Feb 8;(2):CD005971. doi:10.1002/14651858.CD005971.

Ástvaldsdóttir Á, Dagerhamn J, van Dijken JW, Naimi-Akbar A, Sandborgh-Englund G, Tranæus S et al. Longevity of posterior resin composite restorations in adults – A systematic review. J Dent. 2015 Aug;43(8):934-54. doi: 10.1016/j.jdent.2015.05.001.

Ikeda I, Otsuki M, Sadr A, Nomura T, Kishikawa R, Tagami J. Effect of filler content of flowable composites on resin-cavity interface. Dent Mater J. 2009 Nov;28(6):679-85.

Czasch P, Ilie N. In vitro comparison of mechanical properties and degree of cure of bulk fill composites. Clin Oral Investig. 2013 Jan;17(1):227-35. doi: 10.1007/s00784-012-0702-8.

Moorthy A, Hogg CH, Dowling AH, Grufferty BF, Benetti AR, Fleming GJ. Cuspal deflection and microleakage in premolar teeth restored with bulk-fill flowable resin-based composite base materials. J Dent. 2012 Jun;40(6):500-5. doi: 10.1016/j.jdent.2012.02.015.

Sabbagh J, Vreven J, Leloup G. Dynamic and static moduli of elasticity of resin-based materials. Dent Mater. 2002 Jan;18(1):64-71.

Fares NH., et al. Flexural strength and static modular elasticy of composite resin. RevClínica Pesquisa Odontol. 2005 v. 2, n. 1, p. 53-7.

Anusavice KJ; Shen CH; Rawls R. Phillips, Materiais Dentarios. 2013 12.ed. Rio de Janeiro: Elsevier.

Manhart J, Chen H, Hamm G, Hickel R. Buonocore Memorial Lecture. Review of the clinical survival of direct and indirect restorations in posterior teeth of the permanent dentition. Oper Dent. 2004 Sep-Oct;29(5):481-508.

Da Silveira, R. R. et al. Avaliação da resistência de união de reparos de resina composta, utilizando-se diferentes tratamentos de superfície. Arq Odontol, Belo Horizonte. 2012, v. 48. n. 4. p. 234-241.

Ribeiro, M.D.F.; Pazinatto, F. B. Critérios clínicos para decisão entre substituição ou reparo de restaurações em resina composta – revisão de literatura. Rev. bras. odontol., 2016, v. 73, n. 3, p. 223-30.

Hickel R, Peschke A, Tyas M, Mjör I, Bayne S, Peters M, et al. FDI World Dental Federation: clinical criteria for the evaluation of direct and indirect restorations-update and clinical examples. Clin Oral Investig. 2010 Aug;14(4):349-66. doi: 10.1007/s00784-010-0432-8.

Masioli, M. A. et al. Reparo em Restaurações de Resina Composta: procedimento simples e conservador. Rev Bras Pesq Saúde, 2006, v.8, n.3, p. 38-43.

Hickel R, Brüshaver K, Ilie N. Repair of restorations--criteria for decision making and clinical recommendations. Dent Mater. 2013 Jan;29(1):28-50. doi: 10.1016/j.dental.2012.07.006.

Rinastiti M, Özcan M, Siswomihardjo W, Busscher HJ, van der Mei HC. Effect of biofilm on the repair bond strengths of composites. J Dent Res. 2010 Dec;89(12):1476-81. doi: 10.1177/0022034510381395.

Cavalcanti AN, De Lima AF, Peris AR, Mitsui FH, Marchi GM. Effect of surface treatments and bonding agents on the bond strength of repaired composites. J Esthet Restor Dent. 2007;19(2):90-8.

Maneenut C, Sakoolnamarka R, Tyas MJ. The repair potential of resin composite materials. Dent Mater. 2011 Feb;27(2):e20-7. doi: 10.1016/j.dental.2010.09.006.

Ozcan M, Barbosa SH, Melo RM, Galhano GA, Bottino MA. Effect of surface conditioning methods on the microtensile bond strength of resin composite to composite after aging conditions. Dent Mater. 2007 Oct;23(10):1276-82.

Sau CW, Oh GS, Koh H, Chee CS, Lim CC. Shear bond strength of repaired composite resins using a hybrid composite resin. Oper Dent. 1999 May-Jun;24(3):156-61.

Alqarni D, Nakajima M, Hosaka K, Ide K, Nagano D, Wada T, et al. J. The repair bond strength to resin matrix in cured resin composites after water aging. Dent Mater J. 2019 Mar 31;38(2):233-240. doi: 10.4012/dmj.2018-044.

Altinci P, Mutluay M, Tezvergil-Mutluay A. Repair bond strength of nanohybrid composite resins with a universal adhesive. Acta Biomater Odontol Scand. 2017 Dec 12;4(1):10-19. doi: 10.1080/23337931.2017.1412262. eCollection 2018.

Wendler M, Belli R, Panzer R, Skibbe D, Petschelt A, Lohbauer U. Repair Bond Strength of Aged Resin Composite after Different Surface and Bonding Treatments. Materials (Basel). 2016 Jul 7;9(7). pii: E547. doi: 10.3390/ma9070547.

Shinkai K, Taira Y, Suzuki S, Kawashima S, Suzuki M. Effect of filler size and filler loading on wear of experimental flowable resin composites. J Appl Oral Sci. 2018 Feb 1;26:e20160652. doi: 10.1590/1678-7757-2016-0652.

Zhao L, Jian YT, Wang XD, Zhao K. Bond strength of primer/cement systems to zirconia subjected to artificial aging. J Prosthet Dent. 2016 Nov;116(5):790-796. doi: 10.1016/j.prosdent.2016.03.020.

Cornelio RB, Wikant A, Mjosund H, Kopperud HM, Haasum J, Gedde UW, Örtengren UT. The influence of bis-EMA vs bis-GMA on the degree of conversion and water susceptibility of experimental composite materials. Acta Odontol Scand 2014; 72: 440-447. doi: 10.3109 / 00016357.2013.856467.

Cornelio RB, Wikant A, Mjøsund H, Kopperud HM, Haasum J, Gedde UW, et al. The influence of bis-EMA vs bis GMA on the degree of conversion and water susceptibility of experimental composite materials. Acta Odontol Scand. 2014 Aug;72(6):440-7. doi: 10.3109/00016357.2013.856467.

Kanzow P, Wiegand A, Göstemeyer G, Schwendicke F. Understanding the management and teaching of dental restoration repair: Systematic review and meta-analysis of surveys. J Dent. 2018 Feb;69:1-21. doi: 10.1016/j.jdent.2017.09.010.

Fornazari IA, Wille I, Meda EM, Brum RT, Souza EM. Effect of Surface Treatment, Silane, and Universal Adhesive on Microshear Bond Strength of Nanofilled Composite Repairs. Oper Dent. 2017 Jul/Aug;42(4):367-374. doi:10.2341/16-259-L.

Kupiec KA, Barkmeier WW. Laboratory evaluation of surface treatments for composite repair. Oper Dent. 1996 Mar-Apr;21(2):59-62.

Curtis AR, Shortall AC, Marquis PM, PalinWM. Water uptake and strength characteristics of a nanofilled resinbased composite. J Dent 2008; 36: 186-193. doi: 10.1016/j.jdent.2007.11.015.

Ayar MK, Guven ME, Burduroglu HD, Erdemir F. Repair of aged bulk-fill composite with posterior composite: Effect of different surface treatments. J Esthet Restor Dent. 2019 May;31(3):246-252. doi: 10.1111/jerd.12391.

Van Ende A, De Munck J, Van Landuyt KL, Poitevin A, Peumans M, Van Meerbeek B. Bulk-filling of high C-factor posterior cavities: effect on adhesion to cavity-bottom dentin. Dent Mater. 2013 Mar;29(3):269-77. doi: 10.1016/j.dental.2012.11.002.

Downloads

Publicado

2021-09-20

Edição

Seção

Artigos