journal article·2007-05

Effect of oxygen inhibition on composite repair strength over time

Susanna Dall'Oca, Federica Papacchini, Cecilia Goracci, Álvaro H. Cury, Byoung I. Suh, Franklin R. Tay, Antonella Polimeni, Marco Ferrari

Publisher page

Abstract

Abstract The study was aimed at examining whether an oxygen inhibition layer is required for bonding a repairing to a pre‐existing composite, and to determine the time required for free radicals within a composite substrate to decay to the extent that the composite repair strength drops significantly. Ten slabs of Gradia Direct Anterior (GC Corp.) were divided into (1) control group: an interfacial oxygen inhibition layer was created by applying and light‐curing two layers of bonding resin (D/E Resin, Bisco) to the slabs surface in atmospheric air; (2) experimental group: the absence of an interfacial oxygen inhibition layer was obtained by light‐curing the second bonding resin layer in a nitrogen atmosphere. After 1 and 2 h, 1, 14, and 30 days of air storage, a composite repair was layered over the bonding resin. Microtensile bond strengths were measured and statistically analyzed. The curing atmosphere was not a significant factor for bond strength (p = 0.82), and time and curing atmosphere‐time interaction were significant (p < 0.001). The 30 day‐strengths were the lowest (p < 0.05). An oxygen‐inhibited layer is not initially required for bonding to resin composite, and it takes more than 14 days before the bond strength between a pre‐existing and a fresh composite drops. © 2006 Wiley Periodicals, Inc. J Biomed Mater Res Part B: Appl Biomater, 2006
Source: crossref · Quality: baseline

Research context

OpenAlex topics: Dental materials and restorations · Photopolymerization techniques and applications · Additive Manufacturing and 3D Printing Technologies

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

References (27)

Show source-provided references
1. 10.1023/A:100880062675010.1023/A:1008800626750 ↗
2. 10.1016/S0079-6700(01)00004-110.1016/S0079-6700(01)00004-1 ↗
3. 10.1016/S0109-5641(96)80032-710.1016/S0109-5641(96)80032-7 ↗
4. 10.1016/j.polymer.2004.06.06010.1016/j.polymer.2004.06.060 ↗
5. 10.1016/0109-5641(93)90064-W10.1016/0109-5641(93)90064-W ↗
6. 10.1016/S1010-6030(03)00178-310.1016/S1010-6030(03)00178-3 ↗
7. 10.1016/j.polymer.2004.05.06010.1016/j.polymer.2004.05.060 ↗
8. 10.1016/j.biomaterials.2004.06.01210.1016/j.biomaterials.2004.06.012 ↗
9. 10.1046/j.1365-2842.2003.01008.x10.1046/j.1365-2842.2003.01008.x ↗
10. Laboratory evaluation of surface treatments for composite repair
11. Is an O2‐inhibithed layer necessary for bonding of composite resin?
12. 10.1111/j.1708-8240.2004.tb00060.x10.1111/j.1708-8240.2004.tb00060.x ↗
13. 10.1177/0022034590069010050110.1177/00220345900690100501 ↗
14. 10.1016/0022-3913(89)90104-210.1016/0022-3913(89)90104-2 ↗
15. 10.1067/mpr.2001.11677510.1067/mpr.2001.116775 ↗
16. 10.1016/S0022-3913(97)70224-510.1016/S0022-3913(97)70224-5 ↗
17. An in vitro study of the tensile strength of composite resins repaired with the same or another composite resin
18. The microtensile bond test: A review
19. 10.1111/j.1708-8240.2002.tb00145.x10.1111/j.1708-8240.2002.tb00145.x ↗
20. 10.1016/0109-5641(95)80006-910.1016/0109-5641(95)80006-9 ↗
21. 10.1034/j.1600-0579.2003.00275.x10.1034/j.1600-0579.2003.00275.x ↗
22. 10.1016/S0022-3913(83)80089-410.1016/S0022-3913(83)80089-4 ↗
23. Fatigue behaviour of the resin–resin bond of partially replaced resin‐based composite restorations
24. 10.1016/j.biomaterials.2004.01.02610.1016/j.biomaterials.2004.01.026 ↗
25. 10.1002/(SICI)1097-4636(19990315)44:4<436::AID-JBM10>3.0.CO;2-L10.1002/(SICI)1097-4636(19990315)44:4<436::AID-JBM10>3.0.CO;2-L ↗
26. 10.1177/15440591040830010510.1177/154405910408300105 ↗
27. 10.1002/jbm.b.3046310.1002/jbm.b.30463 ↗