IADR Abstract Archives
Repair of Fiber-Reinforced Composite Resin
Objectives: The aim of this study is to evaluate the effect of different surface treatment techniques on the bond strength between composite resin layers after curing the fiber-reinforced composite resins and grinding them with a diamond bur, as well as following the addition of nanohybrid composite resin.
Methods: Disk-shaped specimens (n=10) were prepared from the fiber-reinforced composite(FIC) GC everX Posterior. All groups were directly subjected to the repair procedure immediately. In the control group, the oxygen inhibition layer was not removed from the specimens. Except for the control group, all groups were grinding with a knife-edge diamond bur. The groups of the study were: 1-Positive Control(non-surface treatment)(C), 2-Negative Control(only grinding)(NC), 3-SEBond without Primer(SEB), 4-SEBond(SEBP), 5-Acid+SEBond(ASEBP), 6-Universal adhesive(U), 7-Acid+Universal adhesive(AU). Clearfil SEBond and G-Premio Bond Universal adhesive were used for surface treatment groups in the study. Then, repair application was performed with Kuraray Clearfil Majesty Esthetic A1 and then shear bond strength(SBS) test was performed(MPa). Data were analyzed using one-way analysis of variance Anova test and Tukey's HSD test(p=0,05).
Results: SBS values are as follows; SEBP:21,01; SEB:19,73; C:17,57; ASEBP:17; AU:12,09; U:11,82; NC:10,16.
C, SEB, SEBP groups had significantly higher values than NC, U, AU groups. ASEBP had significantly lower values than SEBP.
Conclusions: SEBond is more successful than universal adhesive in repairing FIC. At the same time, SEBond provided higher values than direct layering(C). There was no statistically significant difference between SEBond and SEBP . Universal adhesive did not provide any additional contribution compared to the repair of ground FIC surface (NC). The use of acid before SEBond significantly decreased SBS.
Methods: Disk-shaped specimens (n=10) were prepared from the fiber-reinforced composite(FIC) GC everX Posterior. All groups were directly subjected to the repair procedure immediately. In the control group, the oxygen inhibition layer was not removed from the specimens. Except for the control group, all groups were grinding with a knife-edge diamond bur. The groups of the study were: 1-Positive Control(non-surface treatment)(C), 2-Negative Control(only grinding)(NC), 3-SEBond without Primer(SEB), 4-SEBond(SEBP), 5-Acid+SEBond(ASEBP), 6-Universal adhesive(U), 7-Acid+Universal adhesive(AU). Clearfil SEBond and G-Premio Bond Universal adhesive were used for surface treatment groups in the study. Then, repair application was performed with Kuraray Clearfil Majesty Esthetic A1 and then shear bond strength(SBS) test was performed(MPa). Data were analyzed using one-way analysis of variance Anova test and Tukey's HSD test(p=0,05).
Results: SBS values are as follows; SEBP:21,01; SEB:19,73; C:17,57; ASEBP:17; AU:12,09; U:11,82; NC:10,16.
C, SEB, SEBP groups had significantly higher values than NC, U, AU groups. ASEBP had significantly lower values than SEBP.
Conclusions: SEBond is more successful than universal adhesive in repairing FIC. At the same time, SEBond provided higher values than direct layering(C). There was no statistically significant difference between SEBond and SEBP . Universal adhesive did not provide any additional contribution compared to the repair of ground FIC surface (NC). The use of acid before SEBond significantly decreased SBS.