Radboud university medical center, Radboud Institute for Health Sciences, Department of Dentistry, Nijmegen, The Netherlands.
Graduate Program in Dentistry, School of Dentistry, Federal University of Pelotas, Pelotas, Brazil.
J Dent. 2017 Apr;59:18-25. doi: 10.1016/j.jdent.2017.01.010. Epub 2017 Feb 4.
Composite resin restorations present high survival rates and when a failure occurs repair is often possible. The aim of this study was to assess the effect of various repair techniques on indirect restorations.
LAVA Ultimate (3M), and Clearfil Estenia blocks (Kuraray) were repaired with our without surface roughness treatments, silane application and artificial ageing. Micro-shear bond stress tests were performed, while cohesive strength served as positive control. ANOVA was used for cohesive strength and effect of ageing, and linear mixed models to evaluate the effect of treatment variables on repair strength.
Both materials reacted differently on surface treatments. Untreated (no treatment, no silane) repair strength was 16.3±6.3MPa for LAVA Ultimate and 19.0±4.3MPa for Estenia. Thermal cycling resulted in a 14-58% reduction of cohesive strength. Without cycling, all treatments resulted in a significant increase of bond strength in LAVA Ultimate (p<0.003). After cycling use of air-abrasion showed a positive trend for both substrates, significantly effective for LAVA Ultimate (p<0.04), and silane and CoJet for Estenia (p<0.024). The positive effect of HF treatment disappeared after cycling.
It may be concluded that (1) the effect of surface treatment procedures on the repair bond strength of indirect composites is depended on the substrate and ageing. (2) Silane did not have a clear overall positive effect on bond strength and (3) artificial ageing had a strong negative influence on the stability of the adhesive interface and on the cohesive strength of one indirect composite resin material, but not the other.
复合树脂修复体的存活率较高，发生失败时通常可进行修复。本研究旨在评估各种修复技术对间接修复体的影响。
采用 LAVA Ultimate（3M）和 Clearfil Estenia 块（Kuraray），分别进行不同的表面粗糙度处理、硅烷应用和人工老化处理，不进行处理、不进行硅烷处理（无处理、无硅烷）的修复强度分别为 LAVA Ultimate 16.3±6.3MPa 和 Estenia 19.0±4.3MPa。进行微剪切结合强度测试，同时以黏结强度作为阳性对照。采用方差分析进行黏结强度和老化效果的评估，采用线性混合模型评估处理变量对修复强度的影响。
两种材料对表面处理的反应不同。未经处理（无处理、无硅烷）的 LAVA Ultimate 和 Estenia 修复强度分别为 16.3±6.3MPa 和 19.0±4.3MPa。热循环导致黏结强度降低 14-58%。不进行循环时，所有处理均导致 LAVA Ultimate 的结合强度显著增加（p<0.003）。循环后，使用空气喷砂对两种基质均显示出积极趋势，对 LAVA Ultimate 显著有效（p<0.04），对 Estenia 则对硅烷和 CoJet 有效（p<0.024）。HF 处理的积极效果在循环后消失。
（1）表面处理程序对间接复合材料修复结合强度的影响取决于基质和老化。（2）硅烷对黏结强度没有明显的整体积极影响。（3）人工老化对黏附界面的稳定性和一种间接复合树脂材料的黏结强度有强烈的负面影响，但对另一种材料没有影响。
