Repair bond strength of restorative resin composite applied to fiber‐reinforced composite substrate

Abstract

Delamination or fracture of composite veneers can occur as a result of improper design of the fiber‐reinforced composite (FRC) framework. This in vitro study tested the repair bond strength of restorative composite to aged FRC. The substrate was multiphase polymer matrix FRC (everStick) aged by boiling for 8 h and storing at 37°C in water for 6 weeks. The aged substrate surfaces were wet‐ground flat with 1200‐grit silicon carbide paper and subjected randomly to 5 different surface treatments: 1) An adhesion primer (Composite Activator) and resin (CA), 2) Silane (EspeSil) and resin (SIL‐MP), 3) Silane, adhesive primer, and resin (Clearfil Repair) (CF), 4) Air particle‐abrading (CoJet), silane, and resin (CJ‐SIL‐MP), 5) Resin (Scotchbond Multipurpose Resin) only as control (MP). Restorative composite resin (Z250) was added to the substrate in 2 mm layer increments and light‐cured. Subsequently, every surface treatment group was divided into 2 subgroups of 12 specimens each. The specimens were either 48 h water‐stored or thermocycled (6000 x 5–55°C). The shear bond strengths of composite resin to FRC were measured at a crosshead speed of 1.0 mm/min. The data were analyzed by ANOVA for factors ‘treatment type’ and ‘storage condition’; Tukey's post‐hoc tests and Weibull analysis were performed. ANOVA showed a significant difference as a function of surface treatment (P<0.05) and storage condition (P<0.05). The CJ‐SIL‐MP group showed highest bond strength and Weibull modulus after thermocycling. Repair of multiphase polymer matrix FRC may show reliable bond strength when silane treatment is used along with air‐particle abrading.

• Air‐abrading
• fiber‐reinforced composite
• repair
• shear bond strength
• silane