Bond Strength of Composite Resin Restoration Repair: Influence of Silane and Adhesive Systems.

AIM: The aim of this study is to evaluate the effect of silane (Si) application and different adhesive systems on the bond strength of composite resin repair. MATERIALS AND METHODS: One hundred composite truncated cone-shaped specimens were prepared and submitted to 5,000 thermal cycles to simulate existing restorations. Their top surfaces were airborne particle abraded with aluminum oxide, etched with phosphoric acid, and divided into two groups (n = 50) with or without Si application. Each group was divided into five subgroups (n = 10) according to the adhesive system applied: Solobond Plus Primer and Adhesive (SPA)-two-bottle, Solobond Plus adhesive (SA), Admira Bond (A)-one bottle, Futurabond DC (FDC)-self-etch, and Futurabond M (FM)-self-etch. New composite resin was applied over the bonded area. A control group was prepared to evaluate the cohesive strength of the composite resin. Specimens were submitted to tensile stress. Data were analyzed with two-way analysis of variance (ANOVA), and the Tukey and Dunnett tests. RESULTS: Si application reduced the bond strength of all adhesives (p = 0.001). Groups SA and SPA showed higher bond strengths in relation to other groups (p = 0.01). Groups FDC + Si, FM, FM + Si, and A + Si showed smaller mean bond strength values than that of the control group (p < 0.05). CONCLUSION: Previous Si application reduced bond strength values. The two-bottle adhesive showed better results than one-bottle or self-etching systems for composite resin repairs. CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE: The kind of adhesive system applied for composite resin repairs has a great influence on bond strength values. The use of Si in this situation is not recommended.

Effect of Matrix Metalloproteinase-inhibiting Solutions and Aging Methods on Dentin Bond Strength.

PURPOSE: This study examined the effects of matrix metalloproteinase-inhibiting solutions and aging methods on the bond strength between resin composite and human dentin. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Crown segments of 105 human non-carious molars were bonded using simulated pulpal pressure at 20 cm water pressure. The teeth were randomly split into 5 groups according to the solution applied: CG (control, no solution), CHX (0.2% chlorhexidine), EPE (10% ethanolic propolis extract), APE (aqueous propolis extract), and E (70% ethanol). Each solution was left on the acid-etched dentin for 1 min. Adper Single Bond 2 and resin composite (Filtek Z350 XT) were applied to all specimens. The 5 groups were subdivided according to the aging method: SI (sectioned immediately); S (storage in artificial saliva for 6 months); and T (thermomechanical aging with 240,000 mechanical cycles and 1000 thermal cycles). Specimens were sectioned into sticks and subjected to microtensile testing. Bond strength data were analyzed by two-factor ANOVA followed by a post-hoc Tukey's test (α=0.05). RESULTS: For the factor "solution", there was no significant difference among the groups (p=0.32). For the factor "aging method", significant differences were found (p<0.001), with the following mean bond strengths (MPa): SI: 31.1; S: 24.4; T: 26.8. CONCLUSIONS: The use of matrix metalloproteinase-inhibiting solutions on dentin as an adjunct to the application of an etch-and-rinse adhesive does not prevent the loss of bond strength after aging. Nevertheless, these solutions have no adverse effect on adhesion to tooth structure.