Effect of interfacial surface treatment on bond strength of particulate-filled composite to short fiber-reinforced composite

Figures & data

Table 1. The flowable resin composites used in the study.

Material (shade/code)	Manufacturer	Composition
G-aenial Flo X (A3/PFC)	GC Corp, Tokyo, Japan	UDMA, dimethacrylate co-monomers. 69 wt% Barium glass fillers in nanometer scale (av. Ø 700 nm)
everX Flow (Bulk shade/SFRC)	GC Corp, Tokyo, Japan	Bis-EMA, TEGDMA, UDMA. 70 wt% Short glass fiber (Ø 6 µm & barium glass fillers Ø 700 nm)

Bis-EMA, Ethoxylated bisphenol-A-dimethacrylate; TEGDMA, triethylene glycol dimethacrylate; UDMA, urethane dimethacrylate; wt%, weight percentage.

Table 2. Test groups and their interfacial surface treatments.

Group	Substructure/surface layer	Interfacial surface treatment
1	SFRC/PFC	Immediate application without treatment
2	SFRC/PFC	Ethanol one wipe for 10 s
3	SFRC/PFC	Ethanol three wipes for 30 s
4	SFRC/PFC	Phosphoric acid etching + bonding agent
5	SFRC/PFC	Hydrofluoric acid etching + bonding agent
6	SFRC/PFC	Grinding (320 grit) + phosphoric acid etching
7	PFC/PFC	Immediate application without treatment (PFC)
8	SFRC/SFRC	Immediate application without treatment (SFRC, control)

Figure 1. Schematic figure of the debonding test (shear bond strength test) setup.

Figure 2. Shear bond strength (mean values and standard deviations; MPa) of the tested groups (n = 18). Same letters indicate no statistically significant differences between groups.

Figure 3. Percentage of the various failure modes in the tested groups (n = 18).

Figure 4. SEM images of an ethanol-treated surface of SFRC at different magnifications.

Figure 5. Schematic figure of the nature of interlayer surfaces between the tested materials.