journal article·2025-06Open access

Repairability of an alkasite composite: Shear bond strength after different surface treatments

Clemens Lechte, Rania Darwiche, Tim Hausdörfer, Jana Biermann, Alexandra Schmidt, Annette Wiegand, Philipp Kanzow

Abstract

This study aimed to assess both the repairability of an alkasite composite (base material) and the suitability of an alkasite composite for repairs (repair material) compared to a universal composite used as base and repair material. Different mechanical surface treatments (simulated diamond bur abrasion, air abrasion, silica coating) with or without the additional use of a universal primer were performed. Surface roughness, shear bond strength, and failure modes were assessed. Statistical analysis was performed using ANOVAs, Weibull analysis, and Chi 2 -tests (p < 0.05). The base material and the mechanical surface treatment impacted surface roughness (both p < 0.001). The base material did not impact repair bond strength (p = 0.129). For both base materials, air abrasion and silica coating resulted in increased surface roughness compared to control (p ≤ 0.014). Only the mechanical surface treatment, the use of a universal primer, and the applied repair material impacted repair bond strength (all p < 0.001). Overall, mechanical surface treatment by air abrasion or silica coating, application of a universal primer, and repairs using the alkasite composite had a beneficial effect on shear bond strength. The base material, the mechanical surface treatment, and the use of a universal primer impacted the distribution of failure modes (all p < 0.001). For both base materials, most cohesive failures were identified after air abrasion or silica coating. Also, the application of a universal primer led to a higher proportion of cohesive failures. Within the limitations of the study, alkasite composite restorations are suitable for repairs using an alkasite composite or a universal composite. • Repair of alkasite composite restorations is possible. • Mechanical treatment (air abrasion or silica coating) is recommended. • Application of a universal primer is recommended.
Source: openalex_inverted_index · Quality: baseline

Research context

OpenAlex topics: Dental materials and restorations · Endodontics and Root Canal Treatments · Building materials and conservation

SciVX discovery tags are terminology-based. OpenAlex topics are source-provided classifications.

References (36)

Show source-provided references
1. EU Parliament bans amalgam from 202510.1038/s41404-024-2620-2 ↗
2. Commercially available fluoride-releasing restorative materials: a review and a proposal for classification10.3390/ma13102313 ↗
3. The impact of an alkasite restorative material on the pH of Streptococcus mutans biofilm and dentin remineralization: an in vitro study10.1186/s12903-022-02354-4 ↗
4. Comparison between restorative materials for pulpotomised deciduous molars: a randomized clinical study
5. New dual-cure resin-based material in occlusal and occluso-proximal restorations of primary teeth: results of a randomized clinical trial10.5005/jp-journals-10005-2173 ↗
6. In vivo evaluation of clinical performance of Cention N and glass ionomer cement in proximal restorations of primary molars10.4103/jisppd.jisppd_108_21 ↗
7. Clinical and radiographic evaluation of different glass ionomer restorative materials in primary molars: a comparative randomized clinical trial
8. Clinical effectiveness of alkasite versus nanofilled resin composite in the restoration of occlusal carious lesions in permanent molar teeth of children: a randomized clinical trial10.1007/s40368-023-00788-0 ↗
9. Clinical performance of an alkasite-based bioactive restorative in class II cavities: a randomized clinical trial10.1590/1678-7757-2023-0025 ↗
10. Evaluation of new alkasite based restorative material for restoring non-carious cervical lesions - randomized controlled clinical trial
11. Clinical performance of two ion-releasing bulk-fill composites in class I and class II restorations: a two-year evaluation10.1111/jerd.13193 ↗
12. Is Cention-N comparable to other direct dental restorative materials? A systematic review with network meta-analysis of in vitro studies10.1016/j.dental.2024.06.014 ↗
13. In vitro comparison of surface roughness, flexural, and microtensile strength of various glass-ionomer-based materials and a new alkasite restorative material10.3390/polym15030650 ↗
14. Alternatives to amalgam: is pretreatment necessary for effective bonding to dentin?10.1016/j.dental.2022.08.011 ↗
15. Comparison of physical and mechanical properties of three different restorative materials in primary teeth: an in vitro study10.1007/s40368-022-00734-6 ↗
16. A comparative evaluation of microleakage and dentin shear bond strength of three restorative materials
17. Comparative evaluation of mechanical and physical properties of a new bulk-fill alkasite with conventional restorative materials10.1016/j.sdentj.2020.04.012 ↗
18. An in vitro evaluation of the mechanical properties and fluoride-releasing ability of a new self-cure filling material10.5005/jp-journals-10024-3050 ↗
19. Flexural properties and dentin adhesion in recently developed self-adhesive bulk-fill materials10.2334/josnusd.20-0448 ↗
20. Microtensile bond strength, marginal leakage, and antibacterial effect of bulk fill resin composite with alkaline fillers versus incremental nanohybrid composite resin
21. Structural/chemical characterization and bond strength of a new self-adhesive bulk-fill restorative
22. Effect of prolonged water aging on the bond strength and marginal seal of three novel restorative materials10.5005/jp-journals-10024-3560 ↗
23. In vitro evaluation of mechanical properties of Cention N and its comparison with resin modified glass ionomer cement (RMGIC) restorative material as used in primary teeth10.1155/2024/9420336 ↗
24. In vitro characterization of a novel resin-based restorative material containing alkaline fillers10.1590/1678-7757-2023-0219 ↗
25. A comparative evaluation of the shear bond strength of three different hybrid tooth-colored restorative materials to dentin: an in-vitro study
26. Effect of different surface treatments on the repair bond strength between aged and new alkasite based restorative material
27. Shear bond strength between conventional composite resin and alkasite-based restoration used in sandwich technique: an in vitro study10.4103/jispcd.jispcd_4_24 ↗
28. Guidelines for reporting pre-clinical in vitro studies on dental materials10.1016/j.jebdp.2012.10.001 ↗
29. Composite-composite adhesion in dentistry: a systematic review and meta-analysis10.1080/01694243.2014.954659 ↗
30. Influence of thermal stress on simulated localized and generalized wear of nanofilled resin composites10.2341/16-206-L ↗
31. Thermal cycling procedures for laboratory testing of dental restorations10.1016/S0300-5712(98)00037-2 ↗
32. Same, same, but different? A systematic review of protocols for restoration repair10.1016/j.jdent.2019.05.021 ↗
33. Shear bond strength of repaired adhesive filling materials using different repair procedures
34. Composite-to-composite microtensile bond strength in the repair of a microfilled hybrid resin: effect of surface treatment and oxygen inhibition
35. Influence of surface treatments on the bond strength of repaired resin composite restorative materials10.1016/j.dental.2008.09.009 ↗
36. Shear vs. tensile bond strength of resin composite bonded to ceramic10.1177/00220345950740091401 ↗