title: Effect of Surface Treatment, Silane, and Universal Adhesive on Microshear Bond Strength of Nanofilled Composite Repairs.
abstract: OBJECTIVE
  The aim of this study was to evaluate the effect of surface treatment and universal adhesive on the microshear bond strength of nanoparticle composite repairs.
  
  
  METHODS
  One hundred and forty-four specimens were built with a nanofilled composite (Filtek Supreme Ultra, 3M ESPE). The surfaces of all the specimens were polished with SiC paper and stored in distilled water at 37°C for 14 days. Half of the specimens were then air abraded with Al2O3particles and cleaned with phosphoric acid. Polished specimens (P) and polished and air-abraded specimens (A), respectively, were randomly divided into two sets of six groups (n=12) according to the following treatments: hydrophobic adhesive only (PH and AH, respectively), silane and hydrophobic adhesive (PCH, ACH), methacryloyloxydecyl dihydrogen phosphate (MDP)-containing silane and hydrophobic adhesive (PMH, AMH), universal adhesive only (PU, AU), silane and universal adhesive (PCU, ACU), and MDP-containing silane and universal adhesive (PMU, AMU). A cylinder with the same composite resin (1.1-mm diameter) was bonded to the treated surfaces to simulate the repair. After 48 hours, the specimens were subjected to microshear testing in a universal testing machine. The failure area was analyzed under an optical microscope at 50× magnification to identify the failure type, and the data were analyzed by three-way analysis of variance and the Games-Howell test (α=0.05).
  
  
  RESULTS
  The variables "surface treatment" and "adhesive" showed statistically significant differences for p<0.05. The highest mean shear bond strength was found in the ACU group but was not statistically different from the means for the other air-abraded groups except AH. All the polished groups except PU showed statistically significant differences compared with the air-abraded groups. The PU group had the highest mean among the polished groups. Cohesive failure was the most frequent failure mode in the air-abraded specimens, while mixed failure was the most common mode in the polished specimens.
  
  
  CONCLUSIONS
  While air abrasion with Al2O3particles increased the repair bond strength of the nanoparticle composite, the use of MDP-containing silane did not lead to a statistically significant increase in bond strength. Silane-containing universal adhesive on its own was as effective as any combination of silane and adhesive, particularly when applied on air-abraded surfaces.
authors.forename: I A
authors.initials: IA
authors.lastname: Fornazari
authors.forename: I
authors.initials: I
authors.lastname: Wille
authors.forename: E M
authors.initials: EM
authors.lastname: Meda
authors.forename: R T
authors.initials: RT
authors.lastname: Brum
authors.forename: E M
authors.initials: EM
authors.lastname: Souza
mesh_terms: D000134:Acid Etching, Dental; D000179:Acrylates / Q000737:chemistry; D020906:Air Abrasion, Dental; D003188:Composite Resins / Q000737:chemistry*; D001840:Dental Bonding; D003764:Dental Materials / Q000737:chemistry*; D003799:Dental Stress Analysis; D017220:Dentin-Bonding Agents / Q000737:chemistry*; D057927:Hydrophobic and Hydrophilic Interactions; D055115:Light-Curing of Dental Adhesives; D008422:Materials Testing; D008689:Methacrylates / Q000737:chemistry*; D011897:Random Allocation; D019279:Resin Cements / Q000737:chemistry; D033081:Shear Strength; D012821:Silanes / Q000737:chemistry*; D013499:Surface Properties
chemical_list: D000179:Acrylates; D003188:Composite Resins; D003764:Dental Materials; D017220:Dentin-Bonding Agents; C000590992:Filtek Supreme Ultra; D008689:Methacrylates; D019279:Resin Cements; D012821:Silanes; C069749:methacryloyloxydecyl dihydrogen phosphate; C040415:heliobond; C041330:Scotchbond