title: Effects of different surface conditioning methods on the bond strength of composite resin to amalgam.
abstract: Repairing amalgam restorations with composite resins using surface conditioning methods is a conservative treatment approach. This study investigated the effects of different conditioning methods that could be used for repair of amalgam fractures. Amalgam (N=96) was condensed into cavities within autopolymerizing polymethylmethacrylate (PMMA), and the exposed surface of each specimen (diameter, 6 mm; thickness, 2 mm) was ground finished. The specimens were randomly divided into nine experimental groups (n=12 per group), depending on the conditioning method used. The control group had natural central incisors with amalgam (n=12). The combination of the following conditioning methods was tested: silicacoating (Sc), sandblasting (Sb), metal primers, coupling agents, fiber (Fb) application, and opaquers (O). Five types of silanes, metal primers, or adhesives (Visiobond [V], Porcelain Photobond [PP], Alloy Primer [AP], Unibond sealer [Us], ESPE-Sil [ES]), and four opaquers, namely, Clearfil St Opaquer (CstO), Sinfony (S), Miris (M), and an experimental Opaquer (EO-Cavex), were used. The groups were as follows: group 1, Sc+ES+S+V; group 2, Sc+ES+CstO+V; group 3, Sc+ES+M+V; group 4, Sc+ES+EO+V; group 5, Sb+AP+S; group 6, Sb+AP+PP+CstO; group 7, Sc+ES+S+Fb+V+Fb; group 8-control, SC+ES+V; and group 9, Etch+Sc+ES+S+Us. One repair composite was used for all groups (Clearfil Photo Bond Posterior, Kuraray, Tokyo, Japan). Shear bond strengths (SBSs) (MPa ± SD) were evaluated after 5 weeks of water storage (analysis of variance [ANOVA], Tukey honestly significant differences [HSD], α=0.05). Group 1 exhibited significantly higher values (35.5 ± 4.1) than were seen in group 4 (19.4 ± 8.9), group 6 (19.1 ± 7.8), and group 8 (20.1 ± 4.1) (p<0.05). Group 9 exhibited significantly lower values (8.3 ± 3.4) than were noted in groups 1 to 3 (35.5 ± 4.1; 27 ± 12.5; 24.4 ± 5.1, respectively) (p<0.05). Group 7 (16.4 ± 5.9) showed significantly lower values than were observed in group 1 (35.5 ± 4.1) (p<0.05). Surface conditioning techniques affected the bond strengths of composite adhesion to amalgam. Experimental opaquer exhibited lower values. Leaving a small border of enamel around the restoration decreased the bond strength.
authors: University of Zurich, Zurich, Switzerland. mutluozcan@hotmail.com
authors: M
authors: M
authors: Ozcan
authors: C
authors: C
authors: Koolman
authors: A
authors: A
authors: Aladag
authors: M
authors: M
authors: Dündar
mesh_terms: D000134:Acid Etching, Dental / Q000379:methods; D017438:Bisphenol A-Glycidyl Methacrylate / Q000737:chemistry; D003188:Composite Resins / Q000737:chemistry*; D003723:Dental Amalgam / Q000737:chemistry*; D001840:Dental Bonding; D003743:Dental Enamel / Q000648:ultrastructure; D045662:Dental Etching / Q000379:methods; D003764:Dental Materials / Q000737:chemistry*; D003775:Dental Polishing / Q000379:methods; D058250:Dental Restoration Repair / Q000379:methods*; D006801:Humans; D008422:Materials Testing; D008689:Methacrylates / Q000737:chemistry; D010756:Phosphoric Acids / Q000737:chemistry; D019904:Polymethyl Methacrylate / Q000737:chemistry; D019279:Resin Cements / Q000737:chemistry; D033081:Shear Strength; D012821:Silanes / Q000737:chemistry; D013314:Stress, Mechanical; D013499:Surface Properties; D013871:Thiones / Q000737:chemistry; D013997:Time Factors; D014867:Water / Q000737:chemistry
chemical_list: C521707:Alloy Primer; C483502:Clearfil ST; D003188:Composite Resins; D003764:Dental Materials; D008689:Methacrylates; D010756:Phosphoric Acids; C481355:Photobond; D019279:Resin Cements; D012821:Silanes; C477352:Sinfony composite resin; D013871:Thiones; C496140:everStick; D014867:Water; C092420:Clearfil Photo Posterior; C100646:Metal Primer; C017492:methacryloxypropyltrimethoxysilane; D017438:Bisphenol A-Glycidyl Methacrylate; D003723:Dental Amalgam; C081713:Visio-Bond; D019904:Polymethyl Methacrylate; C030242:phosphoric acid