DSpace Repository

Repair of Bulk-Fill and Nanohybrid Resin Composites: Effect of Surface Conditioning, Adhesive Promoters, and Long-Term Aging

Show simple item record

dc.creator Husain, Nadin Al-Haj
dc.creator Oezcan, Mutlu
dc.creator UĞURLU, Muhittin
dc.date 2022-07-01T00:00:00Z
dc.date.accessioned 2023-01-09T11:57:46Z
dc.date.available 2023-01-09T11:57:46Z
dc.identifier 007ded03-1e9c-4a35-aaa9-d3d2dfacf111
dc.identifier 10.3390/ma15134688
dc.identifier https://avesis.sdu.edu.tr/publication/details/007ded03-1e9c-4a35-aaa9-d3d2dfacf111/oai
dc.identifier.uri http://acikerisim.sdu.edu.tr/xmlui/handle/123456789/97480
dc.description The aim of the study was to investigate the effect of different repair procedures on the repair bond strength of bulk-fill and nanohybrid resin composites after different aging periods. The resin composite blocks (8 x 8 x 4 mm(3)) were prepared from a bulk-fill (reliaFIL Bulk) and a nanohybrid (reliaFIL LC) resin composite and grouped according to aging duration (6 months, 1 year, and 2 years). Following aging, the blocks were assigned to different surface treatments; air-abrasion with aluminum oxide powder, roughening with a diamond bur, and no treatment. After cleansing with phosphoric acid, a silane layer (Porcelain Primer) was applied on the surface of half of the specimens in each group. The specimens were subdivided into two groups (n = 5): Scotchbond Universal (3M Oral Care) and All-Bond Universal (Bisco). The blocks were repaired with the nanohybrid composite (8 x 8 x 8 mm (3)). The repaired specimens were stored in distilled water (37 degrees C/24 h) and segmented into beams. Half of the beams were immediately subjected to microtensile mu TBS testing (1 mm/min), while the other half was stored in distilled water (37 degrees C) for 6 months before testing. Failure modes were analyzed using stereomicroscope and SEM. Statistical analyses were performed with ANOVA and least significant difference tests (LSD) tests (p = 0.05). The extension of aging periods (6 months, 1 year, and 2 years) reduced the repair bond strength in some groups for both resin composites (p < 0.05). The air-abrasion and bur roughening improved the repair bond strength (p < 0.05). The silane application did not influence the repair bond strength and durability (p > 0.05). There was no difference among the universal adhesives in the same surface treatment groups (p > 0.05). The mechanical roughening treatments are necessary for the repair of resin composite. The universal adhesives might be used for the repair of resin composites regardless of silane content without prior silane application.
dc.language eng
dc.rights info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccess
dc.title Repair of Bulk-Fill and Nanohybrid Resin Composites: Effect of Surface Conditioning, Adhesive Promoters, and Long-Term Aging
dc.type info:eu-repo/semantics/article


Files in this item

Files Size Format View

There are no files associated with this item.

This item appears in the following Collection(s)

Show simple item record

Search DSpace


Advanced Search

Browse

My Account