Repair bond strength in aged methacrylate- and silorane-based composites.

Atais Bacchi, Rafael Leonardo Consani, Mario Alexandre Sinhoreti, Victor Pinheiro Feitosa, Larissa Maria Cavalcante, Carmem Pfeifer, Luis Felipe Schneider

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

24 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

To evaluate the tensile bond strength at repaired interfaces of aged dental composites, either dimethacrylate- or silorane-based, when subjected to different surface treatments. The composites used were Filtek P60 (methacrylate-based, 3M ESPE) and Filtek P90 (silorane-based, 3M ESPE), of which 50 slabs were stored for 6 months at 37°C. The surface of adhesion was abraded with a 600-grit silicone paper and the slabs repaired with the respective composite, according to the following surface treatment protocols: G1: no treatment; G2: adhesive application; G3: silane + adhesive; G4: sandblasting (Al2O3) + adhesive; G5: sandblasting (Al2O3) + silane + adhesive. After 24-h storage in distilled water at 37°C, tensile bond strength (TBS) was determined in a universal testing machine (Instron 4411) at a crosshead speed of 0.5 mm/min. The original data were submitted to two-way ANOVA and Tukey's test (α = 5%). The methacrylate-based composite presented a statistically significantly higher repair potential than did the silorane-based resin (p = 0.0002). Of the surface treatments for the silorane-based composite, aluminum-oxide air abrasion and adhesive (18.5 ± 3.3MPa) provided higher bond strength than only adhesive application or the control group without surface treatment. For Filtek P60, the control without treatment presented lower repair strength than all other groups with surface treatments, which were statistically similar to each other. The interaction between the factors resin composite and surface treatment was significant (p = 0.002). For aged silorane-based materials, repairs were considered successful after sandblasting (Al2O3) and adhesive application. For methacrylate resin, repair was successful with all surface treatments tested.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)447-452
Number of pages6
JournalThe journal of adhesive dentistry
Volume15
Issue number5
StatePublished - Oct 2013

Fingerprint

Silorane Resins
Methacrylates
Adhesives
Silanes
Tensile Strength
Therapeutics
Aluminum Oxide
Composite Resins
Silicones
Clinical Protocols
Analysis of Variance
Tooth
Air

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Dentistry(all)
  • Medicine(all)

Cite this

Bacchi, A., Consani, R. L., Sinhoreti, M. A., Feitosa, V. P., Cavalcante, L. M., Pfeifer, C., & Schneider, L. F. (2013). Repair bond strength in aged methacrylate- and silorane-based composites. The journal of adhesive dentistry, 15(5), 447-452.

Repair bond strength in aged methacrylate- and silorane-based composites. / Bacchi, Atais; Consani, Rafael Leonardo; Sinhoreti, Mario Alexandre; Feitosa, Victor Pinheiro; Cavalcante, Larissa Maria; Pfeifer, Carmem; Schneider, Luis Felipe.

In: The journal of adhesive dentistry, Vol. 15, No. 5, 10.2013, p. 447-452.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Bacchi, A, Consani, RL, Sinhoreti, MA, Feitosa, VP, Cavalcante, LM, Pfeifer, C & Schneider, LF 2013, 'Repair bond strength in aged methacrylate- and silorane-based composites.', The journal of adhesive dentistry, vol. 15, no. 5, pp. 447-452.
Bacchi A, Consani RL, Sinhoreti MA, Feitosa VP, Cavalcante LM, Pfeifer C et al. Repair bond strength in aged methacrylate- and silorane-based composites. The journal of adhesive dentistry. 2013 Oct;15(5):447-452.
Bacchi, Atais ; Consani, Rafael Leonardo ; Sinhoreti, Mario Alexandre ; Feitosa, Victor Pinheiro ; Cavalcante, Larissa Maria ; Pfeifer, Carmem ; Schneider, Luis Felipe. / Repair bond strength in aged methacrylate- and silorane-based composites. In: The journal of adhesive dentistry. 2013 ; Vol. 15, No. 5. pp. 447-452.
@article{4decc201cc6c4308a4ec46d341e532aa,
title = "Repair bond strength in aged methacrylate- and silorane-based composites.",
abstract = "To evaluate the tensile bond strength at repaired interfaces of aged dental composites, either dimethacrylate- or silorane-based, when subjected to different surface treatments. The composites used were Filtek P60 (methacrylate-based, 3M ESPE) and Filtek P90 (silorane-based, 3M ESPE), of which 50 slabs were stored for 6 months at 37°C. The surface of adhesion was abraded with a 600-grit silicone paper and the slabs repaired with the respective composite, according to the following surface treatment protocols: G1: no treatment; G2: adhesive application; G3: silane + adhesive; G4: sandblasting (Al2O3) + adhesive; G5: sandblasting (Al2O3) + silane + adhesive. After 24-h storage in distilled water at 37°C, tensile bond strength (TBS) was determined in a universal testing machine (Instron 4411) at a crosshead speed of 0.5 mm/min. The original data were submitted to two-way ANOVA and Tukey's test (α = 5{\%}). The methacrylate-based composite presented a statistically significantly higher repair potential than did the silorane-based resin (p = 0.0002). Of the surface treatments for the silorane-based composite, aluminum-oxide air abrasion and adhesive (18.5 ± 3.3MPa) provided higher bond strength than only adhesive application or the control group without surface treatment. For Filtek P60, the control without treatment presented lower repair strength than all other groups with surface treatments, which were statistically similar to each other. The interaction between the factors resin composite and surface treatment was significant (p = 0.002). For aged silorane-based materials, repairs were considered successful after sandblasting (Al2O3) and adhesive application. For methacrylate resin, repair was successful with all surface treatments tested.",
author = "Atais Bacchi and Consani, {Rafael Leonardo} and Sinhoreti, {Mario Alexandre} and Feitosa, {Victor Pinheiro} and Cavalcante, {Larissa Maria} and Carmem Pfeifer and Schneider, {Luis Felipe}",
year = "2013",
month = "10",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "15",
pages = "447--452",
journal = "Journal of Adhesive Dentistry",
issn = "1461-5185",
publisher = "Quintessence Publishing Company",
number = "5",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Repair bond strength in aged methacrylate- and silorane-based composites.

AU - Bacchi, Atais

AU - Consani, Rafael Leonardo

AU - Sinhoreti, Mario Alexandre

AU - Feitosa, Victor Pinheiro

AU - Cavalcante, Larissa Maria

AU - Pfeifer, Carmem

AU - Schneider, Luis Felipe

PY - 2013/10

Y1 - 2013/10

N2 - To evaluate the tensile bond strength at repaired interfaces of aged dental composites, either dimethacrylate- or silorane-based, when subjected to different surface treatments. The composites used were Filtek P60 (methacrylate-based, 3M ESPE) and Filtek P90 (silorane-based, 3M ESPE), of which 50 slabs were stored for 6 months at 37°C. The surface of adhesion was abraded with a 600-grit silicone paper and the slabs repaired with the respective composite, according to the following surface treatment protocols: G1: no treatment; G2: adhesive application; G3: silane + adhesive; G4: sandblasting (Al2O3) + adhesive; G5: sandblasting (Al2O3) + silane + adhesive. After 24-h storage in distilled water at 37°C, tensile bond strength (TBS) was determined in a universal testing machine (Instron 4411) at a crosshead speed of 0.5 mm/min. The original data were submitted to two-way ANOVA and Tukey's test (α = 5%). The methacrylate-based composite presented a statistically significantly higher repair potential than did the silorane-based resin (p = 0.0002). Of the surface treatments for the silorane-based composite, aluminum-oxide air abrasion and adhesive (18.5 ± 3.3MPa) provided higher bond strength than only adhesive application or the control group without surface treatment. For Filtek P60, the control without treatment presented lower repair strength than all other groups with surface treatments, which were statistically similar to each other. The interaction between the factors resin composite and surface treatment was significant (p = 0.002). For aged silorane-based materials, repairs were considered successful after sandblasting (Al2O3) and adhesive application. For methacrylate resin, repair was successful with all surface treatments tested.

AB - To evaluate the tensile bond strength at repaired interfaces of aged dental composites, either dimethacrylate- or silorane-based, when subjected to different surface treatments. The composites used were Filtek P60 (methacrylate-based, 3M ESPE) and Filtek P90 (silorane-based, 3M ESPE), of which 50 slabs were stored for 6 months at 37°C. The surface of adhesion was abraded with a 600-grit silicone paper and the slabs repaired with the respective composite, according to the following surface treatment protocols: G1: no treatment; G2: adhesive application; G3: silane + adhesive; G4: sandblasting (Al2O3) + adhesive; G5: sandblasting (Al2O3) + silane + adhesive. After 24-h storage in distilled water at 37°C, tensile bond strength (TBS) was determined in a universal testing machine (Instron 4411) at a crosshead speed of 0.5 mm/min. The original data were submitted to two-way ANOVA and Tukey's test (α = 5%). The methacrylate-based composite presented a statistically significantly higher repair potential than did the silorane-based resin (p = 0.0002). Of the surface treatments for the silorane-based composite, aluminum-oxide air abrasion and adhesive (18.5 ± 3.3MPa) provided higher bond strength than only adhesive application or the control group without surface treatment. For Filtek P60, the control without treatment presented lower repair strength than all other groups with surface treatments, which were statistically similar to each other. The interaction between the factors resin composite and surface treatment was significant (p = 0.002). For aged silorane-based materials, repairs were considered successful after sandblasting (Al2O3) and adhesive application. For methacrylate resin, repair was successful with all surface treatments tested.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84893072708&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=84893072708&partnerID=8YFLogxK

M3 - Article

VL - 15

SP - 447

EP - 452

JO - Journal of Adhesive Dentistry

JF - Journal of Adhesive Dentistry

SN - 1461-5185

IS - 5

ER -