Lasers in Medical Science

, Volume 30, Issue 2, pp 653–659 | Cite as

Effect of different mechanical and chemical surface treatments on the repaired bond strength of an indirect composite resin

  • Soodabeh Kimyai
  • Siavash Savadi Oskoee
  • Narmin Mohammadi
  • Sahand Rikhtegaran
  • Mahmoud Bahari
  • Parnian Alizadeh Oskoee
  • Hafez Vahedpour
Original Article

Abstract

This study compared the effects of two mechanical surface preparation techniques, air abrasion and Nd:YAG laser, with the use of two adhesive systems, self-etch and etch and rinse, on the repair bond strengths of an indirect composite resin. One hundred fifty cylindrical samples of an indirect composite resin were prepared and randomly divided into six groups (n = 25). In groups 1–3, the composite resin surfaces were respectively prepared as follows: no roughening, roughening by air abrasion, and roughening by Nd:YAG laser, followed by application of an etch-and-rinse adhesive. In groups 4–6, the preparation techniques were respectively the same as those in groups 1–3, followed by application of a self-etch adhesive. Subsequently, a direct composite resin was added and repair bond strengths were measured. Data were analyzed with two-way ANOVA and post hoc Tukey's test. Mean bond strength value was significant based on the preparation technique (P < 0.001), i.e., in air abrasion and Nd:YAG laser groups, bond strengths were significantly higher compared to no-preparation groups (P < 0.0005). There were significant differences in bond strength values between air abrasion and Nd:YAG laser groups, with significantly higher values in air abrasion groups (P < 0.0005). However, there were no significant differences in bond strength values between the adhesive systems. Furthermore, the cumulative effects of the adhesive system and the surface preparation technique were not significant. Surface preparation of the indirect composite resin with air abrasion and Nd:YAG laser resulted in a significant increase in the repair bond strength, with air abrasion being more effective. There were no significant differences in bond strength between the two adhesives.

Keywords

Air abrasion Bond strength Indirect composite resin Nd:YAG laser Repair Surface treatment 

Notes

Acknowledgments

The authors extend their gratitude to the Vice Chancellor for Research at Tabriz University of Medical Sciences for their financial support. Furthermore, the authors would like to thank Dr. Majid Abdolrahimi (D.D.S.), who edited the English language of this article and Dr. M. R. Naimi-Jamal for carrying out the AFM imaging procedures.

References

  1. 1.
    Türkmen C, Durkan M, Cimilli H, Öksüz M (2011) Tensile bond strength of indirect composites luted with three new self-adhesive resin cements to dentin. J Appl Oral Sci 19(4):363–369. doi: 10.1590/S1678-77572011005000011 PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Lucena-Martín C, González-López S, Navajas-Rodríguez de Mondelo JM (2001) The effect of various surface treatments and bonding agents on the repaired strength of heat-treated composites. J Prosthet Dent 86(5):481–488. doi: 10.1067/mpr.2001.116775 PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Keski-Nikkola MS, Alander PM, Lassila LV, Vallittu PK (2004) Bond strength of Gradia veneering composite to fibre-reinforced composite. J Oral Rehabil 31(12):1178–1183. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2842.2004.01342.x PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Kimyai S, Mohammadi N, Navimipour EJ, Rikhtegaran S (2010) Comparison of the effect of three mechanical surface treatments on the repair bond strength of a laboratory composite. Photomed Laser Surg 28(2):25–30. doi: 10.1089/pho.2009.2598 Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Dall'oca S, Papacchini F, Radovic I, Polimeni A, Ferrari M (2008) Repair potential of a laboratory-processed nano-hybrid resin composite. J Oral Sci 50(4):403–412. doi: 10.2334/josnusd.50.403 PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Swift EJ Jr, LeValley BD, Boyer DB (1992) Evaluation of new methods for composite repair. Dent Mater 8(6):362–365. doi: 10.1016/0109-5641(92)90020-D PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Poosti M, Jahanbin A, Mahdavi P, Mehrnoush S (2012) Porcelain conditioning with Nd:YAG and Er:YAG laser for bracket bonding in orthodontics. Lasers Med Sci 27(2):321–324. doi: 10.1007/s10103-010-0878-6 PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Akyil MS, Yilmaz A, Karaalioğlu OF, Duymuş ZY (2010) Shear bond strength of repair composite resin to an acid-etched and a laser-irradiated feldspathic ceramic surface. Photomed Laser Surg 28(4):539–545. doi: 10.1089/pho.2009.2586 PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    da Silveira BL, Paglia A, Burnett LH, Shinkai RS, Eduardo Cde P, Spohr AM (2005) Micro-tensile bond strength between a resin cement and an aluminous ceramic treated with Nd:YAG laser, Rocatec System, or aluminum oxide sandblasting. Photomed Laser Surg 23(6):543–548. doi: 10.1089/pho.2005.23.543 PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Alexander R, Xie J, Fried D (2002) Selective removal of residual composite from dental enamel surfaces using the third harmonic of a Q-switched Nd:YAG laser. Lasers Surg Med 30(3):240–245. doi: 10.1002/lsm.10018 PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Tezvergil A, Lassila LV, Vallittu PK (2003) Composite–composite repair bond strength: effect of different adhesion primers. J Dent 31(8):521–525. doi: 10.1016/S0300-5712(03)00093-9 PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Burnett LH Jr, Shinkai RS, Eduardo Cde P (2004) Tensile bond strength of a one-bottle adhesive system to indirect composites treated with Er:YAG laser, air abrasion, or fluoridric acid. Photomed Laser Surg 22(4):351–356. doi: 10.1089/pho.2004.22.351 PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Cavalcanti AN, De Lima AF, Peris AR, Mitsui FH, Marchi GM (2007) Effect of surface treatments and bonding agents on the bond strength of repaired composites. J Esthet Restor Dent 19(2):90–99. doi: 10.1111/j.1708-8240.2007.00073.x PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Bonstein T, Garlapo D, Donarummo J Jr, Bush PJ (2005) Evaluation of varied repair protocols applied to aged composite resin. J Adhes Dent 7(1):41–49. doi: 10.3290/j.jad.a10084 PubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Kara HB, Ozturk AN, Aykent F, Koc O, Ozturk B (2011) The effect of different surface treatments on roughness and bond strength in low fusing ceramics. Lasers Med Sci 26(5):599–604. doi: 10.1007/s10103-010-0806-9 PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Cho S, Rajitrangson P, Matis B, Platt J (2013) Effect of Er,Cr:YSGG laser, air abrasion, and silane application on repaired shear bond strength of composites. Oper Dent 38(3):1–9. doi: 10.2341/11-054-L Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Fawzy AS, El-Askary FS, Amer MA (2008) Effect of surface treatments on the tensile bond strength of repaired water-aged anterior restorative micro-fine hybrid resin composite. J Dent 36(12):969–976. doi: 10.1016/j.jdent.2008.07.014 PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Moezizadeh M, Ansari ZJ, Fard FM (2012) Effect of surface treatment on micro shear bond strength of two indirect composites. J Conserv Dent 15(3):228–232. doi: 10.4103/0972-0707.97943 PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Spohr AM, Borges GA, Júnior LH, Mota EG, Oshima HM (2008) Surface modification of In-Ceram Zirconia ceramic by Nd:YAG laser, Rocatec system, or aluminum oxide sandblasting and its bond strength to a resin cement. Photomed Laser Surg 26(3):203–208. doi: 10.1089/pho.2007.2130 PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag London 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  • Soodabeh Kimyai
    • 1
  • Siavash Savadi Oskoee
    • 1
  • Narmin Mohammadi
    • 2
  • Sahand Rikhtegaran
    • 2
  • Mahmoud Bahari
    • 1
  • Parnian Alizadeh Oskoee
    • 2
  • Hafez Vahedpour
    • 2
  1. 1.Dental and Periodontal Research Center, School of DentistryTabriz University of Medical SciencesTabrizIran
  2. 2.Department of Operative Dentistry, School of DentistryTabriz University of Medical SciencesTabrizIran

Personalised recommendations