Effects of three surface conditioning techniques on repair bond strength of nanohybrid and nanofilled composites
Background: Repair bond strength of different composite resins has been assessed in few studies. In addition, reports on the efficacy of surface treatments are debated. Therefore, this in vitro study was conducted to evaluate the effect of three surface treatments on two nanocomposites versus a micr...
Main Authors: | , , , , |
---|---|
Format: | Article |
Language: | English |
Published: |
Wolters Kluwer Medknow Publications
2015-01-01
|
Series: | Dental Research Journal |
Subjects: | |
Online Access: | http://www.drjjournal.net/article.asp?issn=1735-3327;year=2015;volume=12;issue=6;spage=554;epage=561;aulast=Nassoohi |
id |
doaj-e8053f1a63474107b1e61d307db99ba1 |
---|---|
record_format |
Article |
spelling |
doaj-e8053f1a63474107b1e61d307db99ba12020-11-24T23:37:19ZengWolters Kluwer Medknow PublicationsDental Research Journal1735-33272008-02552015-01-0112655456110.4103/1735-3327.170575Effects of three surface conditioning techniques on repair bond strength of nanohybrid and nanofilled compositesNegin NassoohiHaleh KazemiMorad SadaghianiMona MansouriVahid RakhshanBackground: Repair bond strength of different composite resins has been assessed in few studies. In addition, reports on the efficacy of surface treatments are debated. Therefore, this in vitro study was conducted to evaluate the effect of three surface treatments on two nanocomposites versus a microhybrid composite. Materials and Methods: In this experimental study, 135 composite blocks (45 specimens per composite) of microhybrid (Filtek Supreme Z250, 3M ESPE, USA), nanohybrid (Filtek Supreme XT, 3M ESPE), and nanofilled (Filtek Supreme Z350, 3M ESPE) were thermocycled (5000 rounds) and then surface roughened (except in a control group of 9 specimens of three composite types). Each composite type was divided into three subgroups of surface treatments: (1) Bur abrading and phosphoric acid (PA) etching, (2) sandblasting and PA etching, and (3) hydrofluoric etching and silane application (n = 15 × 9, complying with ISO TR11405). Composite blocks were repaired with the same composite type but of a different color. Microtensile bond strength and modes of failure were analyzed statistically using two-way analyses of variance, Tukey and Chi-square tests (α = 0.05). Results: There were significant differences between three composite resins (P < 0.0001) and treatment techniques (P < 0.0001). Their interaction was nonsignificant (P = 0.228). The difference between nanofilled and nanohybrid was not significant. However, the microhybrid composite showed a significantly higher bond strength (Tukey P < 0.05). Sandblasting was significantly superior to the other two methods, which were not different from each other. Conclusion: Within the limitations of this in vitro study, it seems that microhybrid composite might have higher repair strengths than two evaluated nanocomposites. Among the assessed preparation techniques, sandblasting followed by PA etching might produce the highest bond strength.http://www.drjjournal.net/article.asp?issn=1735-3327;year=2015;volume=12;issue=6;spage=554;epage=561;aulast=NassoohiAcid etchingair abrasioncomposite resinsdentaldental adhesivestensile strength |
collection |
DOAJ |
language |
English |
format |
Article |
sources |
DOAJ |
author |
Negin Nassoohi Haleh Kazemi Morad Sadaghiani Mona Mansouri Vahid Rakhshan |
spellingShingle |
Negin Nassoohi Haleh Kazemi Morad Sadaghiani Mona Mansouri Vahid Rakhshan Effects of three surface conditioning techniques on repair bond strength of nanohybrid and nanofilled composites Dental Research Journal Acid etching air abrasion composite resins dental dental adhesives tensile strength |
author_facet |
Negin Nassoohi Haleh Kazemi Morad Sadaghiani Mona Mansouri Vahid Rakhshan |
author_sort |
Negin Nassoohi |
title |
Effects of three surface conditioning techniques on repair bond strength of nanohybrid and nanofilled composites |
title_short |
Effects of three surface conditioning techniques on repair bond strength of nanohybrid and nanofilled composites |
title_full |
Effects of three surface conditioning techniques on repair bond strength of nanohybrid and nanofilled composites |
title_fullStr |
Effects of three surface conditioning techniques on repair bond strength of nanohybrid and nanofilled composites |
title_full_unstemmed |
Effects of three surface conditioning techniques on repair bond strength of nanohybrid and nanofilled composites |
title_sort |
effects of three surface conditioning techniques on repair bond strength of nanohybrid and nanofilled composites |
publisher |
Wolters Kluwer Medknow Publications |
series |
Dental Research Journal |
issn |
1735-3327 2008-0255 |
publishDate |
2015-01-01 |
description |
Background: Repair bond strength of different composite resins has been assessed in few studies. In addition, reports on the efficacy of surface treatments are debated. Therefore, this in vitro study was conducted to evaluate the effect of three surface treatments on two nanocomposites versus a microhybrid composite.
Materials and Methods: In this experimental study, 135 composite blocks (45 specimens per composite) of microhybrid (Filtek Supreme Z250, 3M ESPE, USA), nanohybrid (Filtek Supreme XT, 3M ESPE), and nanofilled (Filtek Supreme Z350, 3M ESPE) were thermocycled (5000 rounds) and then surface roughened (except in a control group of 9 specimens of three composite types). Each composite type was divided into three subgroups of surface treatments: (1) Bur abrading and phosphoric acid (PA) etching, (2) sandblasting and PA etching, and (3) hydrofluoric etching and silane application (n = 15 × 9, complying with ISO TR11405). Composite blocks were repaired with the same composite type but of a different color. Microtensile bond strength and modes of failure were analyzed statistically using two-way analyses of variance, Tukey and Chi-square tests (α = 0.05).
Results: There were significant differences between three composite resins (P < 0.0001) and treatment techniques (P < 0.0001). Their interaction was nonsignificant (P = 0.228). The difference between nanofilled and nanohybrid was not significant. However, the microhybrid composite showed a significantly higher bond strength (Tukey P < 0.05). Sandblasting was significantly superior to the other two methods, which were not different from each other.
Conclusion: Within the limitations of this in vitro study, it seems that microhybrid composite might have higher repair strengths than two evaluated nanocomposites. Among the assessed preparation techniques, sandblasting followed by PA etching might produce the highest bond strength. |
topic |
Acid etching air abrasion composite resins dental dental adhesives tensile strength |
url |
http://www.drjjournal.net/article.asp?issn=1735-3327;year=2015;volume=12;issue=6;spage=554;epage=561;aulast=Nassoohi |
work_keys_str_mv |
AT neginnassoohi effectsofthreesurfaceconditioningtechniquesonrepairbondstrengthofnanohybridandnanofilledcomposites AT halehkazemi effectsofthreesurfaceconditioningtechniquesonrepairbondstrengthofnanohybridandnanofilledcomposites AT moradsadaghiani effectsofthreesurfaceconditioningtechniquesonrepairbondstrengthofnanohybridandnanofilledcomposites AT monamansouri effectsofthreesurfaceconditioningtechniquesonrepairbondstrengthofnanohybridandnanofilledcomposites AT vahidrakhshan effectsofthreesurfaceconditioningtechniquesonrepairbondstrengthofnanohybridandnanofilledcomposites |
_version_ |
1725520440939511808 |