Effect of thermal cycling on the composite- composite repair bond strength.
- Author:
Chang LIU
1
;
Fei LIN
1
;
Lin YUE
2
;
Email: KQLINYUE@BJMU.EDU.CN.
Author Information
- Publication Type:Journal Article
- MeSH: Composite Resins; chemistry; Dental Bonding; Dental Cements; chemistry; Dental Stress Analysis; methods; Hot Temperature; Humans; Methacrylates; chemistry; Resin Cements; chemistry; Silorane Resins; chemistry; Tensile Strength
- From: Chinese Journal of Stomatology 2015;50(8):483-487
- CountryChina
- Language:Chinese
-
Abstract:
OBJECTIVETo evaluate the effect of aging of the composite and the adhesive interface on composite-composite repair bond strength.
METHODSMethacrylate-based composite resin (Clearfil AP-X, composite A) and silorane-based composite resin (Filtek P90, composite B) and their corresponding adhesive, Clearfil SE Bond (adhesive a) and Filtek P90 System Adhesive (adhesive b), were selected in this study. Twenty-four substrates were prepared from composite A or B separately and divided into three groups, each group had 8 substrates: group one, new composites were adhered to the substrates with the use of adhesive a or b, followed by cutting the blocks into sticks; group two, new composites were adhered to the substrates using adhesive a or b, followed by cutting into sticks and thermal cycling; group three, substrates were thermocycled, then polished and adhered new composites using adhesive a or b, followed by cutting into sticks. Each group had 8 combinations of substrate(A, B)-adhesive(a, b)-repair composite (A, B). Fifteen sticks without flaws in each combination of 3 groups were selected utilizing stereomicroscope. The data were analyzed by independent samples t test.
RESULTSIn group two, the microtensile strength(MS) of combinations using adhesive a and composite A or B to repair [A-a-A: (45.0 ± 3.2) MPa, B-a-A: (41.7 ± 3.3) MPa, A-a-B: (28.6 ± 3.9) MPa, B-a-B: (47.7 ± 6.6) MPa], and using adhesive b and composite A to repair [A-b-A: (44.2 ± 4.7) MPa, B-b-A: (38.0 ± 3.2) MPa] decreased significantly compared with corresponding combinations in group 1[A-a-A: (70.7 ± 5.5) MPa, B-a-A: (60.3 ± 5.1) MPa, A-a-B: (44.2 ± 1.6) MPa, B-a-B: (54.1 ± 3.2) MPa, A-b-A: (65.6 ± 7.2) MPa, B-b-A: (59.1 ± 4.1) MPa] (P<0.05). However, there was no significant difference between the MS of combinations using adhesive b and composite B to repair in group one and the MS of combinations in group two (P>0.05). The MS of all combinations in group three decreased significantly (P<0.05).
CONCLUSIONSAging of the composite and the adhesive interface might affect the composite-composite repair bond strength.
