What is the effect of different surface treatments and adhesives on repair bond strength of resin composites?

This summary is based on the research done by the Nordin Institute of Dental Materials (NIOM) and published in the journal of Operative Dentistry: Effect of Different Surface Treatments and Adhesives on Repair Bond Strength of Resin Composites After One and 12 Months of Storage Using an Improved Microtensile Test Method (May 2014 [Epub ahead of print])

ST Eliasson  J Tibballs  JE Dahl

Context

• The replacement of failed restorations is a major dental health care expense and accounts for roughly half of restorative dental work.(1-4)
• Removing faulty bonded-composite restorations is a demanding and time-consuming task. It has been demonstrated in a clinically simulated study that more than twice as much tooth structure was lost when removing composite restorations than comparable amalgam restorations.(5) As a consequence, a more conservative and minimally invasive approach—repair rather than replacement of the whole restoration—has been suggested when possible. (2,6,7) 
• Furthermore, some clinical evidence has been presented that repairing composites increases the longevity of the restorations. (8)
  
• Since the introduction of resin composite materials, researchers have explored methods to repair composite restorations by adding new composite to the old. (9)

Purpose of the Study

To evaluate the effect of surface treatments and bonding systems on the repair bond strength between composite materials after one and 12 months of storage, using an improved microtensile test method.

Key Findings

The best repair bond strength was achieved by using freshly mixed silane solution on the substrate in addition to an adhesive, rendering a thin bonding layer.

References

1. Mjor IA (1997) The reasons for replacement and the age of failed restorations in general dental practice. Acta Odontologica Scandinavica 55(1) 58-63.
2. Mjor IA, & Gordan VV (2002) Failure, repair, refurbishing and longevity of restorations. Operative Dentistry 27(5) 528-534.
3. Mjor IA, Shen C, Eliasson ST, & Richter S (2002) Placement and replacement of restorations in general dental practice in Iceland. Operative Dentistry 27(2) 117-123.
4. Tyas MJ, Anusavice KJ, Frencken JE, & Mount GJ (2000) Minimal intervention dentistry—A review FDI Commission Project 1-97. International Dental Journal 50(1) 1-12.
5. Krejci I, Lieber CM, & Lutz F (1995) Time required to remove totally bonded tooth-colored posterior restorations and related tooth substance loss. Dental Materials 11(1) 34-40.
6. Gordan VV, Riley JL, Worley DC, & Gilbert GH (2012) Restorative material and other tooth-specific variables associated with the decision to repair or replace defective restorations: Findings from The Dental PBRN. Journal of Dentistry 40(5) 397-405.
7. Mjor IA (1993) Repair versus replacement of failed restorations International. Dental Journal 43(5) 466-472.
8. Gordan VV, Riley JL, Blaser PK, & Mjor IA (2006) 2-year clinical evaluation of alternative treatments to replacement of defective amalgam restorations. Operative Dentistry 31(4) 418-425.
9. Boyer DB, Chan KC, & Torney DL (1978) The strength of multilayer and repaired composite resin. Journal of Prosthetic Dentistry 39(1) 63-67.

Do you have any particular question on this topic? Do you have any comments or suggestions? Email us at oasisdiscussions@cda-adc.ca

You are invited to comment on this post and provide further insights by posting in the comment box which you will find by clicking on “Post a reply” below. You are welcome to remain anonymous and your email address will not be posted.