Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
The purpose of this in vitro study was to evaluate the influence of different surface treatments and aging on the microtensile bond strength (μTBS) of bulk-fill composite resins. Bulk-fill composites (Filtek One; 3M ESPE) randomly received five different surface treatments: (1) no treatment, control, (2) 37% phosphoric acid etching (PA), (3) 9% hydrofluoric acid etching (HF), (4) air-borne particle abrasion with 50-μm alumina particles (Al2O3), (5) tribochemical silica coating (CoJet). Following, the specimens were divided into three subgroups according to universal adhesive applied: Clearfil Universal Bond (CU; Kuraray), Prime&Bond Universal (PBU; Dentsply Sirona), or Single Bond Universal (SBU; 3M ESPE). A nanofill composite (Filtek Ultimate; 3M ESPE) was employed as a repair. Bonded specimens were stored in water for 24 h at 37 °C or thermal aged, then subjected to the μTBS test. Additionally, specimens were analyzed with a contact profilometer and were evaluated with scanning electron microscopy. Control and PA treatments were showed the lowest µTBS (p < 0.05), and there was no significant difference between these two groups (p > 0.05). Al2O3 and CoJet treatments generally exhibited a similar influence on µTBS values. In addition, a correlation was found between surface roughness and bond strength (r = 0.831). CoJet resulted in significantly higher repair µTBS values when compared to the other surface treatments. In addition, the use of silane-containing universal adhesive was increased the cohesive failure rate and maintained the repair µTBS values after thermocycling.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Şişmanoğlu et al. (2019) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: