Microtensile bond strength of composite-to-composite repair with different surface treatments and adhesive systems

Objectives: The purpose was to investigate the effect of different surface treatments and bonding agents on the repair bond strength of different resin-based restorative materials by microtensile bond strength (μTBS) testing protocol. Materials and Methods: 24 Grandio SO(VOCO) and 24 Filtek Z250(3 M) resin composite blocks were prepared. Half of the samples (N = 12) were diamond bur-roughened and the other half (N = 12) were sandblasted by 50 μm aluminum oxide particles. They were further divided into four sub-groups (n = 3) and received the following: Sub-Group1: Adper Single Bond2 (Etch&Rinse) (3 M); Sub-Group2: Clearfil SE (Self-etch) (Kuraray); Sub-Group3: Beauty Bond (HEMA-free all-in-one) (Shofu); Sub-Group4: All Bond3 (HEMA-free, hydrophobic, etch&rinse) (Bisco). The samples were repaired by Filtek Z250 to form a block. All of the resultant sub-groups combinations consisted of one of the composite type, surface treatment type, and adhesive systems. A total of 18 groups were prepared including 2 homogeneous blocks. They were thermocycled and μTBS measurements were performed. Data were statistically analyzed with Kruskall–Wallis and Mann–Whitney U tests. Results: The experimental regroups' μTBS reached to 34.67–66.36% and 43.44–95.52% of the cohesive bond strength for Grandio SO and Z250, respectively. The pre-existing composite type is found to be statistically important. When the surface is bur-finished Grandio performed better; when air-abrasion is considered Z250 showed higher bond strength. All-in-one adhesive system produced the weakest bond strength at all parameters. Conclusion: It may be suggested that when the pre-existing composite is unknown, air-abrasion may be performed with etch&rinse or two-step self-etch adhesives.