IADR Abstract Archives
How to Increase Bond Strength of Composites and Acrylic Resins?
Objectives: This study was carried out to compare the effects of different surface treatments and resin consistency on the shear bond strength of the adhesive interface between composite resin (CR) and autopolymerized acrylic resin (AR).
Methods: Sixty four cubes of AR (dimensions 10x10x7 mm) were included into plastic matrixes. Surface roughness were standardized with digital rugosimeter. After ultrasonic bath, half of the sample received sandblast treatment. After that, the following treatments were randomly applied: monomer methyl methacrylate (MMA) (180 s) (control), adhesive primer (G-Bond, GC Europe), MMA (180 s) followed by adhesive primer (G-Bond, GC Europe), adhesive composite (Schotbond, 3M Espe), MMA (180 s) followed by adhesive composite (Schotbond, 3M Espe). Each block received two cylinder (2 mm diameter) of each of the following CR: conventional (Solare GC America, GC America or Filtek Z350, 3M Espe) or low consistency (Universal Gaenial Flow, GC America or Filtek Z350 flow, 3M Espe). Specimens were tested in Universal Testing Machine (Instron 4444, USA) (0.5 mm/min) with increasing voltage up to breakage. Data was analyzed d by factorial ANOVA followed by Tukey (α = 0.05).
Results: Higher shear bond strengths were developed after surface treatment with MMA associated to both adhesive systems (p <0.001) (Table 1). Significant interaction was observed between resin type and treatment (p <0.001). Shear bond strength of low consistency CR were higher than conventional CR (p<0.001). Similarly, sandblast treatment increased bond strength (p<0.001). Failure was primarily adhesive in all groups.
Conclusions: To increase the shear bond strength of composite and acrylic resins interface is necessary to combine sandblast application previously to the consequent application of MMA for 180 s and light-cured adhesive primer.
Methods: Sixty four cubes of AR (dimensions 10x10x7 mm) were included into plastic matrixes. Surface roughness were standardized with digital rugosimeter. After ultrasonic bath, half of the sample received sandblast treatment. After that, the following treatments were randomly applied: monomer methyl methacrylate (MMA) (180 s) (control), adhesive primer (G-Bond, GC Europe), MMA (180 s) followed by adhesive primer (G-Bond, GC Europe), adhesive composite (Schotbond, 3M Espe), MMA (180 s) followed by adhesive composite (Schotbond, 3M Espe). Each block received two cylinder (2 mm diameter) of each of the following CR: conventional (Solare GC America, GC America or Filtek Z350, 3M Espe) or low consistency (Universal Gaenial Flow, GC America or Filtek Z350 flow, 3M Espe). Specimens were tested in Universal Testing Machine (Instron 4444, USA) (0.5 mm/min) with increasing voltage up to breakage. Data was analyzed d by factorial ANOVA followed by Tukey (α = 0.05).
Results: Higher shear bond strengths were developed after surface treatment with MMA associated to both adhesive systems (p <0.001) (Table 1). Significant interaction was observed between resin type and treatment (p <0.001). Shear bond strength of low consistency CR were higher than conventional CR (p<0.001). Similarly, sandblast treatment increased bond strength (p<0.001). Failure was primarily adhesive in all groups.
Conclusions: To increase the shear bond strength of composite and acrylic resins interface is necessary to combine sandblast application previously to the consequent application of MMA for 180 s and light-cured adhesive primer.