J Bagh Coll Dentistry

Vol. 18(2), 2006

Evaluation of interfacial

Evaluation of interfacial bond strength of repaired composite resins

Ali M. Abdul Kareem B.D.S, Ph.D.(1)

ABSTRACT
Background: Repair of composite restorationsis a choice if absence of caries is guaranteed. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the interfacial shear bond strength of the immediately repaired composite specimens. Materials and methods: Sixty specimens from 2 types of composite were made in a special mold and polymerized with light. Three methods of surface treatment of the initial layer were done prior to the application of the repair layer including the use of matrix strip or not and abrasion. The specimens were subjected to shear force from the testing machine and mean for each group was calculated. Results: The nonair inhibited specimens showed the highest values of shear bond strength (mean =13.1 Mpa) which was significantly different from the bur abraded specimens (p<0.05), but insignificant from the air inhibited specimens (p>0.05) for both types of composite. Conclusion: The absence of air inhibited layer by using matrix strip increase the interfacial bond strength of the immediately repaired composite with inferior interfacial bonding for the bur abrasion method. Keywords: Composite, bond strength, repair. (J Bagh Coll Dentistry 2006; 18(2) 32-34)

INTRODUCTION
A freshly placed composite restoration is considered sometime unacceptable, because of color difference, incorrect contour and over finishing (1). Therefore, there are two solutions, either to repair or replace the filling. Repair option is preferred to reduce pulp injury and cost. (2) The most important thing in the repair procedure is the development of good bond strength in the interface between the old and new layers (3). It has been found that the interfacial bond strength of the repaired restoration for various composite resins is affected by age of the initial layer, the condition of surface in the initial layer, the curing medium, contamination of the surface of the initial layer by saliva, the use of bonding agent (4,5) and similarity of the two composites (6,7). The aim of this study was to measure the interfacial bond strengths of immediately repaired composite resins after different surface treatments of the initial layer.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Two types of commercially available composite resins were used in this study: Degufill mineral (Degussa Dental; Germany, hybrid composite) and Helioprogress (Vivadent; Liechtenstein, microfilled composite).

(1) Lecturer, Department of Conservative Dentistry, College of Dentistry, University of Baghdad.

Sixty specimens were made by creating special mold (6mm in diameter and 8mm length). Then the materials were polymerized by light curing device (Coltolux 50 ColtenFrance) for 40 seconds. The samples were divided into 3 groups for each type of composite and treated as follows: Group I: Air-inhibited specimens. The composite material was placed in 6 mm diameter, 8 mm high gelatin capsules and placed on the top of the initial layer and cured for 80 seconds. Group II: Non-air inhibited specimens; 0.05mm thick matrix strip is used to cover the surface of the cured layer prior to the placement of the capsule and its polymerization. Group III: Abraded specimens; in this group, no strip was used. The surface of the cured layer was abraded with carbide bur prior to the placement of capsule and light curing. In all the three groups, the capsules were dissolved after polymerization and all excess material was removed carefully from the bonded site. All specimens were stored in normal saline for 4 weeks at 37o C. The samples were subjected to shear loading until failure using shear punch test (8) with Zwick (Model 1454, Germany) testing machine (Figure 1). After fixation of specimens on special plate, a stainless steel chisel-shaped rod is directed toward the interface between the two layers, allowing the repair layer to be sheared from the initial layer in a displacement speed of 5mm/min. The shear bond strength was calculated by dividing the force by the surface area, and expressed in Mega Pascal (Mpa).

Restorative Dentistry

32

J Bagh Coll Dentistry

Vol. 18(2), 2006

Evaluation of interfacial

Figure 1: The Zwick testing machine.

RESULTS
After calculating the shear bond strength, the mean and standard deviation for each group were recorded (Table 1). The result data showed that the specimens showed different resistance to failure under loading as shown in figure 2. ANOVA test was done, and showed that there is a high significant difference between the three methods of treatment (P=0.000), while there is no significant difference (P>0.05) between the 2 types of composite used.

In Group II in which there is no air-inhibited layer on the initial layer because of the placement of strip, the means of shear bond strength for both types of composite were higher than those in the group I, but the difference is statistically insignificant (p>0.05) according to T-test. In Group III in which the initial layer was abraded prior to the placement of repair layer, the specimens had the lowest mean of bond strength in both types (7.8, 6.7 Mpa) which were significantly different from the mean values for the Group I and II (P<0.05) by t tests.

Table 1: Mean and standard deviation values of the interfacial shear bond strength for the immediately repaired composite specimens (Mpa)
Composite type Group Mean SD Helio progress Group I 11.2 3.3 Group II 13.1 4.2 Group III 6.7 2.1 Group I 11.4 2.9 Degufill mineral Group II 12.3 3.2 GroupIII 7.8 1.6

Figure 2: Bar chart showing the difference between the groups

Restorative Dentistry

33

J Bagh Coll Dentistry

Vol. 18(2), 2006

Evaluation of interfacial

DISCUSSION
The immediate repair of composite resin restoration for minor correction is more preferable to replacement, to reduce pulp damage, cost of the replacement material and time. For immediate repair, several methods can be used like: direct application of the repair layer, application of acid etch and bonding agent on the initial layer and abrasion of the initial layer (9). In this study, the effects of air-inhibited layer formation and abrasion of the surface layer were investigated. The result data showed that, the interfacial shear bond strengths for the non air and air-inhibited surface state of the initial layer were significantly indifferent, while these values were significantly different from the values of the Group III in which the surfaces were abraded. For specimen made of either types of composite, the absence of airinhibited layer on the surface of initial layer led to increase in the interfacial shear bond strength and this agreed with (Croll 1990 (10), Armstrong et al 2001 (11) and disagreed with (Li and others 1995 (12) and Eliades et al 1989 (13) who suggested that the formations of a thin viscous layer comprising unreacted methaycrylate groups on the cured layer during polymerization (because of inhibition by oxygen) will enhance the bonding between the initial and repair layer through the formation of covalent bond, secondary bonds and mechanical interlocking (14). The present results supported the results of (Puckett et al 1991)(15), who found that the oxygen inhibited film between adjacent composite layers reduced interfacial bond strength. This was argued to in adequate bonding, which is related to topical reduction of the initiator concentration arising form copolymerization of the inhibited film with the repair composite. In group III, abrasion of the initial layer prior to the placement of the repair layer produced weaker bonds. The abraded surface consisted of exposed inorganic filler particles and exposed prepolymerized resin particles. Bonding to either of these particles is less favourable compared to a resin rich layer (unabraded surface) because of the decreased ability for primary bonding to methacrylate groups (16).

REFERENCES
1. Deligeory V, Major I, Wilson NA. An overview of reasons for the placement and replacement of restorations. Prime Dent Care 2001; 8: 5-11. 2. Bruke FJ, Wilson NH, Cheung SW. Influence of patient factors on age of restoration at failure and reasons for their replacement. J Dent 2001; 29: 317-29. 3. Pounder B, Greogery WA. Bond strengths of repaired composite resins Oper Dent 1987; 12: 127 31. 4. Hickel R, Manhart J. Longevity of restorations in posterior teeth and reasons for failure. J Adhes Dent 2001; 3: 45 64. 5. Swift EJ, Close BC, Boyer DB. Effect of Silane coupling agent on composite repair strengths. Am J Dent 1994; 7: 200 2. 6. Kao EC, Pryor HG, Johnston WM. Strengths of composites repaired by Laminating with dissimilar composites .J Prosth Dent 1988; 60:328-33. 7. Miranda FJ, Dun Canson MG, Dilts WE. Interfacial bonding strength of repaired composite systems. J Prosthet Dent 1984; 51:29-32. 8. Nomoto R, Carrick TE, McCabe J. Suitability of shear punch test for dental restorative materials. J Dent Mater 2001; 17: 412 21. 9. Opdam NJ. Repair and replacement of composite. Ned Taandh eelkd 2001; 108: 90 3. 10. Croll TP. Repair of Class I composite resin restorations. Quint Int 1990; 21: 6958. 11. Armstrong S, Keller JC, Boyer DB. Mode of failure in the resin bonded joint as determined by strengthbased and fracture based mechanical testing. Dent Mater 2001; 17: 20110. 12. Li J, Liu Y, Sundostromf WM. Oxygen layer and bonding in dental composite. J Dent Research 1995; 74:493. 13. Eliades GC, Capto AA. The strength of layering technique in visible light cured composite. J Prosthet Dent 1989; 61: 318. 14. Vankerckhoven H, Lam Brechts P, Vanherle G. Un reacted methacrylate groups on the surfaces of composite resins; J Dent Res 1982; 61; 7915. 15. Puckett AD, Holder R, OHara JW. Strength of posterior composite repairs using different composite bonding agent combinations. Oper Dent 1991; 19:13640. 16. Boyer DB, Chan KC, Tormey DL. Build up and repair of light cured composites: bond strength J Prosthet Dent 1984; 43:1241 4.

Restorative Dentistry

34