Download PDF
CC BY 4.0 · Eur J Dent 2023; 17(03): 804-808
DOI: 10.1055/s-0042-1755627
Original Article

Chemical Surface Modification Methods of Resin Composite Repaired with Resin-Modified Glass-Ionomer Cement

Awiruth Klaisiri 
1   Division of Restorative Dentistry, Faculty of Dentistry, Thammasat University, Pathum Thani, Thailand
,
Panupat Phumpatrakom
2   Division of Endodontics, Faculty of Dentistry, Thammasat University, Pathum Thani, Thailand
,
Niyom Thamrongananskul
3   Department of Prosthodontics, Faculty of Dentistry, Chulalongkorn University, Bangkok, Thailand
› Author Affiliations Funding This study was supported by the Thammasat University Research Fund of Thammasat University, Thailand, Contract No. TUFT 21/2565.
› Further Information
Also available at
   Permissions and Reprints

Abstract

Objective This study examined the chemical surface modification methods of resin composite repaired with resin-modified glass-ionomer cement (RMGIC).

Materials and Methods Ninety aged resin composite rods were produced and sorted into 9 groups of 10 specimens and surface modified with silane agent and/or bonding agent as follows: group 1, no surface modified; group 2, etch + single bond 2 (SB2); group 3, SB2; group 4, etch + RelyX ceramic primer (RXP) + SB2; group 5, RXP + SB2; group 6, etch + single bond universal (SU); group 7, SU; group 8, etch + RXP + SU; and group 9, RXP + SU. A clear silicone mold was placed on the top of specimen center, and then filled with RMGIC. The specimens' shear bond strengths (SBSs) were examined in mechanical testing equipment. To determine failure types, the fractured specimen surfaces were inspected using a stereomicroscope.

Statistical Analysis The data collected were analyzed using one-way analysis of variance, and significance level was operated using Tukey's test (p < 0.05).

Results Group 8 had the greatest SBS, but it was statistically indistinguishable from groups 4, 5, and 9. The most frequent fracture mode was adhesive failure. High SBS was commonly associated with mixed failure.

Conclusion The use of bonding agents enhances the resin composite's wettability and allows it to bond to RMGIC. Moreover, the use of the silane coupling agent before applying bonding agent showed significantly higher bonding ability of resin composite and RMGIC interface.

Keywords

resin composite - resin-modified glass-ionomer cement - silane coupling agent - universal adhesive


Publication History

Article published online:
11 October 2022

© 2022. The Author(s). This is an open access article published by Thieme under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, permitting unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction so long as the original work is properly cited. (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/)

Thieme Medical and Scientific Publishers Pvt. Ltd.
A-12, 2nd Floor, Sector 2, Noida-201301 UP, India

 

  • References

  • 1 Mjör IA, Gordan VV. Failure, repair, refurbishing and longevity of restorations. Oper Dent 2002; 27 (05) 528-534
    PubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 2 Gordan VV, Riley III JL, Geraldeli S. et al; Dental Practice-Based Research Network Collaborative Group. Repair or replacement of defective restorations by dentists in the Dental Practice-Based Research Network. J Am Dent Assoc 2012; 143 (06) 593-601
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 3 Gordan VV, Shen C, Riley III J, Mjör IA. Two-year clinical evaluation of repair versus replacement of composite restorations. J Esthet Restor Dent 2006; 18 (03) 144-153 , discussion 154
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 4 Moncada G, Martin J, Fernández E, Hempel MC, Mjör IA, Gordan VV. Sealing, refurbishment and repair of Class I and Class II defective restorations: a three-year clinical trial. J Am Dent Assoc 2009; 140 (04) 425-432
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 5 Popoff DA, de Magalhães CS, de Freitas Oliveira W. et al. Two-year clinical performance of dimethacrylate based composite restorations repaired with a silorane-based composite. J Adhes Dent 2014; 16 (06) 575-583
    PubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 6 Martin J, Fernandez E, Estay J, Gordan VV, Mjor IA, Moncada G. Minimal invasive treatment for defective restorations: five-year results using sealants. Oper Dent 2013; 38 (02) 125-133
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 7 Fernández E, Martín J, Vildósola P. et al. Can repair increase the longevity of composite resins? Results of a 10-year clinical trial. J Dent 2015; 43 (02) 279-286
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 8 Woolford MJ, Grieve AR. The use of intermediary resins when bonding glass polyalkenoate (ionomer) cement to composite resin. J Oral Rehabil 1993; 20 (03) 249-255
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 9 Frankenberger R, Hartmann VE, Krech M. et al. Adhesive luting of new CAD/CAM materials. Int J Comput Dent 2015; 18 (01) 9-20
    PubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 10 Neis CA, Albuquerque NL, Albuquerque IdeS. et al. Surface treatments for repair of feldspathic, leucite - and lithium disilicate-reinforced glass ceramics using composite resin. Braz Dent J 2015; 26 (02) 152-155
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 11 Matinlinna JP, Lassila LV, Ozcan M, Yli-Urpo A, Vallittu PK. An introduction to silanes and their clinical applications in dentistry. Int J Prosthodont 2004; 17 (02) 155-164
    PubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 12 Tarateeraseth T, Thamrongananskul N, Kraisintu P, Somyhokwilas S, Klaisiri A, Sriamporn T. Effect of different types of silane coupling agents on the shear bond strength between lithium disilicate glass ceramic and resin cement. J Int Dent Med Res 2020; 13 (03) 836-842
    Search in Google Scholar
  • 13 Klaisiri A, Krajangta N, Phumpatrakom P, Sriamporn T, Thamrongananskul N. The use of silane coupling agents on lithium disilicate glass ceramic repaired with resin composite. J Int Dent Med Res 2021; 14 (01) 169-172
    Search in Google Scholar
  • 14 Klaisiri A, Krajangta N, Phumpatrakom P, Sriamporn T. The effect of curing mode in universal adhesive on zirconia and resin cement shear bond strength. J Int Dent Med Res 2021; 14 (03) 896-900
    Search in Google Scholar
  • 15 Brosh T, Pilo R, Bichacho N, Blutstein R. Effect of combinations of surface treatments and bonding agents on the bond strength of repaired composites. J Prosthet Dent 1997; 77 (02) 122-126
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 16 Loomans BA, Cardoso MV, Opdam NJ. et al. Surface roughness of etched composite resin in light of composite repair. J Dent 2011; 39 (07) 499-505
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 17 Bahari M, Savadi-Oskoee S, Kimyai S, Savadi-Oskoee A, Abbasi F. Effects of different etching strategies on the microtensile repair bond strength of beautifil II giomer material. J Clin Exp Dent 2018; 10 (08) e732-e738
    PubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 18 Kupiec KA, Barkmeier WW. Laboratory evaluation of surface treatments for composite repair. Oper Dent 1996; 21 (02) 59-62
    PubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 19 Irmak O, Celiksoz O, Yilmaz B, Yaman BC. Adhesive system affects repair bond strength of resin composite. J Istanb Univ Fac Dent 2017; 51 (03) 25-31
    PubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 20 Rinastiti M, Özcan M, Siswomihardjo W, Busscher HJ. Effects of surface conditioning on repair bond strengths of non-aged and aged microhybrid, nanohybrid, and nanofilled composite resins. Clin Oral Investig 2011; 15 (05) 625-633
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 21 Celik C, Cehreli SB, Arhun N. Resin composite repair: quantitative microleakage evaluation of resin-resin and resin-tooth interfaces with different surface treatments. Eur J Dent 2015; 9 (01) 92-99
    Thieme ConnectPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 22 Maneenut C, Sakoolnamarka R, Tyas MJ. The repair potential of resin composite materials. Dent Mater 2011; 27 (02) e20-e27
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 23 Imbery TA, Gray T, DeLatour F, Boxx C, Best AM, Moon PC. Evaluation of flexural, diametral tensile, and shear bond strength of composite repairs. Oper Dent 2014; 39 (06) E250-E260
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 24 Zaghloul H, Elkassas DW, Haridy MF. Effect of incorporation of silane in the bonding agent on the repair potential of machinable esthetic blocks. Eur J Dent 2014; 8 (01) 44-52
    Thieme ConnectPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 25 Silva UPC, Maia AP, Silva ID, Miranda ME, Brandt WC. Influence of the multiple layers application and the heating of silane on the bond strength between lithium disilicate ceramics and resinous cement. Eur J Dent 2021; 15 (04) 720-726
    Thieme ConnectPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 26 Staxrud F, Dahl JE. Silanising agents promote resin-composite repair. Int Dent J 2015; 65 (06) 311-315
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 27 Fornazari IA, Wille I, Meda EM, Brum RT, Souza EM. Effect of surface treatment, silane, and universal adhesive on microshear bond strength of nanofilled composite repairs. Oper Dent 2017; 42 (04) 367-374
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 28 Silva CLD, Scherer MM, Mendes LT, Casagrande L, Leitune VCB, Lenzi TL. Does use of silane-containing universal adhesive eliminate the need for silane application in direct composite repair?. Braz Oral Res 2020; 34: e045
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 29 Kalavacharla VK, Lawson NC, Ramp LC, Burgess JO. Influence of etching protocol and silane treatment with a universal adhesive on lithium disilicate bond strength. Oper Dent 2015; 40 (04) 372-378
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 30 Jayasheel A, Niranjan N, Pamidi H, Suryakanth MB. Comparative evaluation of shear bond strength of universal dental adhesives -an in vitro study. J Clin Exp Dent 2017; 9 (07) e892-e896
    PubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 31 Lung CY, Matinlinna JP. Aspects of silane coupling agents and surface conditioning in dentistry: an overview. Dent Mater 2012; 28 (05) 467-477
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar