Use of nonhydrolyzed silane prior to the silane-containing universal adhesive application improves the repair bond strength of resin composite
Source abstract
Abstract
Objective To compare the effect of hydrolyzed and nonhydrolyzed silanes prior to the silane-containing universal adhesive application on the repair bond strength between old and new resin composite. Material and methods Fifty-four blocks of nanohybrid resin composite (Z350 XT) were aged by water storage for six months. The aged specimen surfaces were wet-ground manually with 320-grit silicon carbide grinding paper and randomly assigned into six experimental groups according to surface treatment: silane-containing universal adhesive in the self-etch mode (Scotchbond Universal); nonhydrolyzed silane (Silane Coupling Agent) plus Scotchbond Universal; hydrolyzed silane (RelyX Ceramic Primer) plus Scotchbond Universal; self-etch adhesive system (Clearfil SE Bond); nonhydrolyzed silane plus Clearfil SE Bond; hydrolyzed silane plus Clearfil SE Bond. Blocks were repaired with the same composite. After 24 h of water storage, the blocks were sectioned and bonded sticks were submitted to microtensile bond strength test (μTBS). Two-way ANOVA and Tukey`s tests were used to analyze the μTBS means. Results The highest repair bond strength values were achieved when nonhydrolyzed silane was applied prior to the silane-containing universal adhesive system (p = 0.03). The previous silane application did not increase the repair bond strength when a two-step self-etch adhesive was used. Mixed/adhesive failures prevailed in all groups. Conclusion The use of a nonhydrolyzed silane prior to the silane-containing universal adhesive in the self-etch mode application improves the repair bond strength of old and new resin composite.
Source: expertdata · Quality: candidate unverified · Source record ↗
Research context
OpenAlex topics: Dental materials and restorations · Dental Research and COVID-19 · Dental Implant Techniques and Outcomes
SciVX discovery tags are terminology-based. OpenAlex topics are source-provided classifications.
References (31)
Show source-provided references
1. The decision to repair or replace a defective restoration is affected by who placed the original restoration: findings from the National Dental PBRN10.1016/j.jdent.2014.09.005 ↗
2. Repair may increase survival of direct posterior restorations – a practice based study10.1016/j.jdent.2017.06.002 ↗
3. Repair increases the survival of failed primary teeth restorations in high–caries risk children: a university-based retrospective study
4. Retrospective analysis on the repair vs. replacement of composite restorations10.1016/j.dental.2019.11.001 ↗
5. Repair of restorations - criteria for decision making and clinical recommendations10.1016/j.dental.2012.07.006 ↗
6. Understanding the management and teaching of dental restoration repair: systematic review and meta-analysis of surveys10.1016/j.jdent.2017.09.010 ↗
7. Same, same, but different? A systematic review of protocols for restoration repair10.1016/j.jdent.2019.05.021 ↗
8. Bonding performance of universal adhesives on composite repairs, with or without silane application10.4103/JCD.JCD_11_18 ↗
9. Effect of physicochemical aging conditions on the composite-composite repair bond strength
10. Aspects of silane coupling agents and surface conditioning in dentistry: an overview10.1016/j.dental.2012.02.009 ↗
11. Silane coupling agents are beneficial for resin composite repair: a systematic review and meta-analysis of in vitro studies
12. Effect of curing and silanizing on composite repair bond strength using an improved micro-tensile test method10.1080/23337931.2017.1301211 ↗
13. The repair bond strength to resin matrix in cured resin composites after water aging
14. Effect of surface treatment, silane, and universal adhesive on microshear bond strength of nanofilled composite repairs10.2341/16-259-L ↗
15. Does use of silane-containing universal adhesive eliminate the need for silane application in direct composite repair?10.1590/1807-3107bor-2020.vol34.0045 ↗
16. Silane effect of universal adhesive on the composite-composite repair bond strength after different surface pretreatments10.3390/polym12040950 ↗
17. The effect of silane-containing universal adhesives on the immediate and delayed bond strength of repaired composite restorations10.4103/1735-3327.328755 ↗
18. CRIS Guidelines (Checklist for Reporting In-vitro Studies): a concept note on the need for standardized guidelines for improving quality and transparency in reporting in-vitro studies in experimental dental research10.4103/0972-0707.136338 ↗
19. Tensile bond strength of an aged resin composite repaired with different protocols
20. Effect of different surface treatments and adhesives on repair bond strength of resin composites after one and 12 Months of storage using an improved microtensile test method10.2341/12-429-L ↗
21. Moisture spectrum of demineralized dentin for adhesive systems with different solvent bases
22. Bonding performance of universal adhesives: an updated systematic review and meta-analysis
23. Water sorption and water-induced molecular mobility in dental composite resins10.1023/A:1025080103857 ↗
24. Hygroscopic and hydrolytic effects in dental polymer networks10.1016/j.dental.2005.05.005 ↗
25. Silane adhesion mechanism in dental applications and surface treatments: a review10.1016/j.dental.2017.09.002 ↗
26. One-year aging effects on microtensile bond strengths of composite and repairs with different surface treatments10.1590/1807-3107bor-2017.vol31.0004 ↗
27. Is there one optimal repair technique for all composites?10.1016/j.dental.2011.03.013 ↗
28. Effect of surface treatments on the tensile bond strength of repaired water-aged anterior restorative micro-fine hybrid resin composite10.1016/j.jdent.2008.07.014 ↗
29. Composite repair: on the fatigue strength of universal adhesives10.1016/j.dental.2021.12.003 ↗
30. Effectiveness and stability of silane coupling agent incorporated in ‘universal’ adhesives10.1016/j.dental.2016.07.002 ↗
31. Effect of silane contamination on dentin bond strength10.1016/j.prosdent.2016.06.021 ↗