Merck

Repair bond strength in aged methacrylate- and silorane-based composites.

The journal of adhesive dentistry (2013-04-18)
Atais Bacchi, Rafael Leonardo Consani, Mario Alexandre Sinhoreti, Victor Pinheiro Feitosa, Larissa Maria Cavalcante, Carmem Silva Pfeifer, Luis Felipe Schneider
RESUMO

To evaluate the tensile bond strength at repaired interfaces of aged dental composites, either dimethacrylate- or silorane-based, when subjected to different surface treatments. The composites used were Filtek P60 (methacrylate-based, 3M ESPE) and Filtek P90 (silorane-based, 3M ESPE), of which 50 slabs were stored for 6 months at 37°C. The surface of adhesion was abraded with a 600-grit silicone paper and the slabs repaired with the respective composite, according to the following surface treatment protocols: G1: no treatment; G2: adhesive application; G3: silane + adhesive; G4: sandblasting (Al2O3) + adhesive; G5: sandblasting (Al2O3) + silane + adhesive. After 24-h storage in distilled water at 37°C, tensile bond strength (TBS) was determined in a universal testing machine (Instron 4411) at a crosshead speed of 0.5 mm/min. The original data were submitted to two-way ANOVA and Tukey's test (α = 5%). The methacrylate-based composite presented a statistically significantly higher repair potential than did the silorane-based resin (p = 0.0002). Of the surface treatments for the silorane-based composite, aluminum-oxide air abrasion and adhesive (18.5 ± 3.3MPa) provided higher bond strength than only adhesive application or the control group without surface treatment. For Filtek P60, the control without treatment presented lower repair strength than all other groups with surface treatments, which were statistically similar to each other. The interaction between the factors resin composite and surface treatment was significant (p = 0.002). For aged silorane-based materials, repairs were considered successful after sandblasting (Al2O3) and adhesive application. For methacrylate resin, repair was successful with all surface treatments tested.

MATERIAIS
Número do produto
Marca
Descrição do produto

Sigma-Aldrich
Bisphenol A glycerolate dimethacrylate, glycerol/phenol 1
Sigma-Aldrich
Aluminum oxide, 99.997% trace metals basis
Sigma-Aldrich
Aluminum oxide, nanowires, diam. × L 2-6 nm × 200-400 nm
Supelco
Aluminum oxide, for the determination of hydrocarbons
Supelco
Aluminum oxide, activated, neutral, Brockmann Activity I
Sigma-Aldrich
Aluminum oxide, nanopowder, 13 nm primary particle size (TEM), 99.8% trace metals basis
Sigma-Aldrich
Aluminum oxide, nanopowder, <50 nm particle size (TEM)
Sigma-Aldrich
Aluminum oxide, nanoparticles, 30-60 nm particle size (TEM), 20 wt. % in H2O
Sigma-Aldrich
Aluminum oxide, single crystal substrate, <0001>
Sigma-Aldrich
Aluminum oxide, nanoparticles, <50 nm particle size (DLS), 20 wt. % in isopropanol
Sigma-Aldrich
Aluminum oxide, activated, acidic, Brockmann I
Sigma-Aldrich
Aluminum oxide, activated, basic, Brockmann I
Sigma-Aldrich
Aluminum oxide, fused, powder, primarily α-phase, 100-200 mesh
Sigma-Aldrich
Aluminum oxide, powder, primarily α phase, ≤10 μm avg. part. size, 99.5% trace metals basis
Sigma-Aldrich
Aluminum oxide, Type WN-6, Neutral, Activity Grade Super I
Sigma-Aldrich
Aluminum oxide, activated, neutral, Brockmann I
Sigma-Aldrich
Aluminum oxide, powder, 99.99% trace metals basis
Sigma-Aldrich
Aluminum oxide, pore size 58 Å, ~150 mesh
Sigma-Aldrich
Aluminum oxide, pellets, 3 mm
Sigma-Aldrich
Aluminum oxide, Corundum, α-phase, -100 mesh
Sigma-Aldrich
Aluminum oxide, fused, powder, primarily α-phase, -325 mesh
Sigma-Aldrich
Aluminum oxide, calcined, powder, primarily α-phase, 100-325 mesh
Sigma-Aldrich
Aluminum oxide, activated, acidic, Brockmann I, free-flowing, Redi-Dri
Sigma-Aldrich
Aluminum oxide, activated, neutral, Brockmann I, free-flowing, Redi-Dri
Sigma-Aldrich
Aluminum oxide, mesoporous, MSU-X (wormhole), average pore size 3.8 nm