![Sample our Physical Sciences journals, sign in here to start your FREE access for 14 days]({"type":"image" , "src" : "/sda/110819/TOC-Subject-Sample-2021-Physical-Sciences.jpg"})
Abstract
To evaluate the effect of different surface treatment protocols on the microtensile bond strength (μTBS) of bulk-fill resin composite repairs. Thirty-five bulk-fill resin composite samples (Filtek Bulk Fill) were prepared (5 × 5 × 5 mm) and aged by thermocycling (X5000). Samples were randomly divided into five groups (n = 7): a control (no treatment) and four surface treatment groups (Single Bond Universal [SBU]; phosphoric acid (37%) + SBU; Er,Cr:YSGG laser + SBU; aluminum oxide sandblasting + SBU). Filtek Ultimate Universal composite was used as a repair material. After storage for 24 h in distilled water (37 °C), sticks were obtained and subjected to a μTBS test. The data (MPa) were analyzed by one-way ANOVA with a post hoc test (α = 0.05). Failure mode was evaluated using a light microscope (10×). There were significant differences between the groups (p < 0.05). The lowest bond strength values were obtained in the control group (p < 0.05). No significant difference was observed between Group II (universal adhesive) and Group III (acid etch + universal adhesive) (p > 0.05). The bond strength of Group II was significantly lower than that of the other surface treatment groups (p < 0.05). While Group III showed significantly lower values than those of the laser treatment group (Group IV), similar values were obtained with Al2O3 sandblasting group (Group V). The highest repair bond strength was obtained in Group IV (p < 0.05) which was not significantly different from the Al2O3 sandblasting group (p > 0.05). The predominant failure mode was adhesive. Treatment of aged bulk-fill resin composite surfaces with laser and Al2O3 sandblasting provided higher repair bond strength values.
Acknowledgements
The present article is derived from the conference abstract: C. Atalay, A.R. Yazici and G. Özgünaltay, 2017, Repair of Bulk-Fill Composites: Effect of Universal Adhesive and Different Surface Treatments, Clinical Oral Investigations, 21(4), pp. 1379.