1. Influence of surface treatments to repair recent fillings of silorane-and methacrylate-based composites.
- Author
-
Kaneko, Marina, Armini Caldas, Ricardo, Pinheiro Feitosa, Victor, Xediek Consani, Rafael Leonardo, Schneider, Luis Felipe J., and Bacchi, Ataís
- Subjects
DENTAL research ,DENTAL resins ,DENTAL fillings ,OPERATIVE dentistry ,METHACRYLATES ,POLYMERIZATION ,ROOT canal treatment ,DENTITION - Abstract
Purpose: The aim of this study was to evaluate the tensile bond strength (TBS) of repairs in recent fillings of methacrylate- (MBC) or silorane-based composites (SBC) subsequent to different surface treatments. Materials and Methods: Fifty slabs of Filtek P60 (3M ESPE, St Paul, USA) and Filtek P90 (3M ESPE) were stored for 10 days in distilled water at 37°C. The surface of adhesion was abraded with a 600-grit silicone paper and repaired using each respective composite: G1, no treatment (control); G2, application of adhesive; G3, application of silane and adhesive; G4, sandblasting (Al2O3) and adhesive; and G5, sandblasting (Al2O3), silane, and adhesive. Further 10 slabs of each composite were also evaluated for cohesive strength (G6). After 30 days immersion in distilled water at 37°C, the TBS was determined. Results: TBS results were higher for MBC than for SBC (P = 0.00012). The experimental groups were similar for SBC and the TBS was 27% of its cohesive strength. For P60, sandblasting significantly improved the TBS compared to other groups. With MBC, G4 and G5, the TBS was approximately 47% of its cohesive strength. Conclusion: Sandblasting (Al2O3) improves the repair-strength of MBC, whilst for the SBC all treatments succeed. MBC presents higher repair strength than SBC. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]
- Published
- 2015
- Full Text
- View/download PDF