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...

Full description

Bibliographic Details
Main Authors: Negin Nassoohi, Haleh Kazemi, Morad Sadaghiani, Mona Mansouri, Vahid Rakhshan
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