The effect of surface treatment and bonding procedures on the bond strength of silorane composite repairs

Authors

  • Adriano Fonseca Lima Department of Restorative Dentistry, Piracicaba Dental School, University of Campinas, Piracicaba, SP, Brazil; Department of Restorative Dentistry, School of Dentistry, Nove de Julho University
  • Sthefanie Furlan Andrigo Ferreira Department of Restorative Dentistry, Piracicaba Dental School, University of Campinas, Piracicaba, SP, Brazil
  • Anderson Catelan Department of Restorative Dentistry, Piracicaba Dental School, University of Campinas, Piracicaba, SP, Brazil
  • Alan Rodrigo Muniz Palialol Department of Restorative Dentistry, Piracicaba Dental School, University of Campinas, Piracicaba, SP, Brazil
  • Luciano Souza Gonçalves Dental School, University of Uberaba, Uberaba, MG, Brazil
  • Flávio Henrique Baggio Aguiar Department of Restorative Dentistry, Piracicaba Dental School, University of Campinas, Piracicaba, SP, Brazil
  • Giselle Maria Marchi Department of Restorative Dentistry, Piracicaba Dental School, University of Campinas, Piracicaba, SP, Brazil

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.3109/00016357.2013.804945

Keywords:

Composite resin, adhesive system, microtensile, silane

Abstract

Objective. The aim of this study was to evaluate the effect of surface treatments and adhesive protocols on the microtensile bond strength of a low-shrinkage composite repair. Materials and methods. Ninety-six blocks of composite resin Filtek LS were prepared using a half-hourglass-shaped silicone matrix. The specimens were storage for 24 h in distilled water and were randomly divided into the experimental (6) and negative control (2) groups (n = 12) according to the surface treatment (diamond bur and aluminum oxide sandblasting) and adhesive protocol (none; Filtek LS adhesive; phosphoric acid + Filtek LS adhesive; and phosphoric acid + silane + Filtek LS adhesive). After the adhesive procedure, the specimens were fixed in an hourglass-shaped silicone matrix and the other half of the specimen was restored. Hourglass shaped specimens (n = 12) were used as positive control (cohesive strength of the resin). The microtensile bonding test was performed at a crosshead speed of 0.5 mm/min. The data were analyzed using ANOVA, Tukey's and Dunnett's tests (α = 0.05). Results. The bond strength values were similar for all experimental groups, except the groups without adhesive application. None of the experimental groups presented results similar to the positive control group. Conclusions. The repair of silorane restorations is viable; nevertheless, the different bonding procedures tested were incapable to produce bond strengths similar to the cohesive strength of the material.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

Downloads

Published

2014-01-01