Effect of oxygen inhibition on composite repair strength over time
Source abstract
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 ↗