TY - JOUR
T1 - Surface treatment techniques for resin composite repair
AU - Bouschlicher, Murray R.
AU - Reinhardt, John W.
AU - Vargas, Marcos A.
PY - 1997
Y1 - 1997
N2 - Purpose: To compare bond strengths of fresh resin composites to previously polymerized ("aged") composites following various surface treatments. Materials and Methods: Eighty Pertac Hybrid (PH) and an equal number of Silux Plus (SLX) specimens were fabricated and stored for 1 week prior to surface treatment. The specimens were then polished and stored for an additional 24 hours prior to final surface treatment. The surface treatments included use of one of the following: (1) diamond bur (DB), (2) microetcher with 50 μm Al2O3 @ 80 psi pressure (ME), (3) high-pressure air abrasion with 27 μm Al2O3 @ 160 psi, (KCP), or (4) low-pressure silicate ceramic deposition using 30 μm particles @ 34 psi (CJ-S) with a microetcher. Half of the samples were treated with a silanating agent. Fresh resin composite (same type as used for the aged specimen) was bonded to the treated surfaces, and specimens were then stored 24 h and thermocycled 300x at 5° and 55°C prior to testing for shear bond strength. Two-way ANOVA was used to determine significant differences between mean shear bond strengths for both composite materials. Results: Significant differences were found between the groups for both surface treatment and silane use (P< 0.05). The interaction between the two main effects was also significant (P< 0.05). Overall, the highest bond strengths were found when the low-pressure silicate ceramic deposition system (CI-S) was used, with or without silane.
AB - Purpose: To compare bond strengths of fresh resin composites to previously polymerized ("aged") composites following various surface treatments. Materials and Methods: Eighty Pertac Hybrid (PH) and an equal number of Silux Plus (SLX) specimens were fabricated and stored for 1 week prior to surface treatment. The specimens were then polished and stored for an additional 24 hours prior to final surface treatment. The surface treatments included use of one of the following: (1) diamond bur (DB), (2) microetcher with 50 μm Al2O3 @ 80 psi pressure (ME), (3) high-pressure air abrasion with 27 μm Al2O3 @ 160 psi, (KCP), or (4) low-pressure silicate ceramic deposition using 30 μm particles @ 34 psi (CJ-S) with a microetcher. Half of the samples were treated with a silanating agent. Fresh resin composite (same type as used for the aged specimen) was bonded to the treated surfaces, and specimens were then stored 24 h and thermocycled 300x at 5° and 55°C prior to testing for shear bond strength. Two-way ANOVA was used to determine significant differences between mean shear bond strengths for both composite materials. Results: Significant differences were found between the groups for both surface treatment and silane use (P< 0.05). The interaction between the two main effects was also significant (P< 0.05). Overall, the highest bond strengths were found when the low-pressure silicate ceramic deposition system (CI-S) was used, with or without silane.
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=0031311985&partnerID=8YFLogxK
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=0031311985&partnerID=8YFLogxK
M3 - Article
C2 - 9590916
AN - SCOPUS:0031311985
SN - 0894-8275
VL - 10
SP - 279
EP - 283
JO - American journal of dentistry
JF - American journal of dentistry
IS - 6
ER -