The effect of different surface treatments and adhesive systems on shear bond strength in universal nanohybrid composite resin repair
Abstract Background The aim of this study is to evaluate the effect of different surface treatments and adhesives on shear bond strength (SBS) in the repair of composite resin restorations. Methods In this study, 60 discs (2 mm x 10 mm) were prepared using a universal nanohybrid composite resin (Gra...
Saved in:
| Main Authors: | , , , |
|---|---|
| Format: | Article |
| Language: | English |
| Published: |
BMC
2025-03-01
|
| Series: | BMC Oral Health |
| Subjects: | |
| Online Access: | https://doi.org/10.1186/s12903-025-05807-8 |
| Tags: |
Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
|
| _version_ | 1850064821812199424 |
|---|---|
| author | Merve Kütük Ömeroğlu Melek Çam Işıl Doğruer Zeynep Buket Kaynar |
| author_facet | Merve Kütük Ömeroğlu Melek Çam Işıl Doğruer Zeynep Buket Kaynar |
| author_sort | Merve Kütük Ömeroğlu |
| collection | DOAJ |
| description | Abstract Background The aim of this study is to evaluate the effect of different surface treatments and adhesives on shear bond strength (SBS) in the repair of composite resin restorations. Methods In this study, 60 discs (2 mm x 10 mm) were prepared using a universal nanohybrid composite resin (GrandioSo, Voco, Germany). The discs were aged by exposure to 5000 thermal cycles between 5 and 55 °C for 30 s with an immersion procedure. Then samples were divided into 3 groups (n:20) according to the surface treatments (Group 1: no surface treatment, Group 2: roughening by bur, Group 3: roughening by Er, Cr: YSGG laser). Subsequently, the specimens were classified into two groups (n:10) according to the adhesive systems; a two-step self-etch adhesive (Clearfil SE bond (SE)), or a universal adhesive (Scotchbond Universal Plus (SB)). After surface treatments and adhesive applications, the same universal nanohybrid composite resin with a height of 2 mm and a diameter of 3 mm was placed in the center of the samples. The samples were then submitted to the SBS test using universal testing equipment (Autograph AGS-X; Shimadzu, Kyoto, Japan) with a crosshead speed of 1 mm/min. The failure modes were examined using a stereomicroscope. The surface topography of the roughened and fractured surfaces resin composite (n = 1) was assessed using scanning electron microscopy (SEM). Analyses were performed using IBM SPSS 25 programme (p < 0.05). Results The highest bond strength was observed in the laser + SE group (22.69 ± 4.49), while the lowest was recorded in the control + SE group (14.12 ± 3.00). In the SE adhesive group, no significant difference was found between the laser + SE and bur + SE groups (p > 0.05). Similarly, in the SB adhesive group, there were no significant differences among the surface roughening procedures (p = 0.078). Additionally, no significant differences were observed between the adhesives according to various surface roughening procedures. The failure mode was predominantly cohesive in old composites. Conclusion The bond strength can be improved by surface treatments such as diamond burs, Er, Cr: YSGG laser application for better bonding strategies in the repair of nanohybrid resin composite restorations. There was no statistically significant difference in bond strength between the adhesives tested in this study. |
| format | Article |
| id | doaj-art-7e53c68aca204dcc8cd6a51346e4da11 |
| institution | DOAJ |
| issn | 1472-6831 |
| language | English |
| publishDate | 2025-03-01 |
| publisher | BMC |
| record_format | Article |
| series | BMC Oral Health |
| spelling | doaj-art-7e53c68aca204dcc8cd6a51346e4da112025-08-20T02:49:12ZengBMCBMC Oral Health1472-68312025-03-0125111010.1186/s12903-025-05807-8The effect of different surface treatments and adhesive systems on shear bond strength in universal nanohybrid composite resin repairMerve Kütük Ömeroğlu0Melek Çam1Işıl Doğruer2Zeynep Buket Kaynar3Faculty of Dentistry, Department of Restorative Dentistry, Istanbul Okan UniversityFaculty of Dentistry, Department of Restorative Dentistry, Istanbul Okan UniversityFaculty of Dentistry, Department of Restorative Dentistry, Istanbul Okan UniversityFaculty of Dentistry, Department of Restorative Dentistry, Istanbul Okan UniversityAbstract Background The aim of this study is to evaluate the effect of different surface treatments and adhesives on shear bond strength (SBS) in the repair of composite resin restorations. Methods In this study, 60 discs (2 mm x 10 mm) were prepared using a universal nanohybrid composite resin (GrandioSo, Voco, Germany). The discs were aged by exposure to 5000 thermal cycles between 5 and 55 °C for 30 s with an immersion procedure. Then samples were divided into 3 groups (n:20) according to the surface treatments (Group 1: no surface treatment, Group 2: roughening by bur, Group 3: roughening by Er, Cr: YSGG laser). Subsequently, the specimens were classified into two groups (n:10) according to the adhesive systems; a two-step self-etch adhesive (Clearfil SE bond (SE)), or a universal adhesive (Scotchbond Universal Plus (SB)). After surface treatments and adhesive applications, the same universal nanohybrid composite resin with a height of 2 mm and a diameter of 3 mm was placed in the center of the samples. The samples were then submitted to the SBS test using universal testing equipment (Autograph AGS-X; Shimadzu, Kyoto, Japan) with a crosshead speed of 1 mm/min. The failure modes were examined using a stereomicroscope. The surface topography of the roughened and fractured surfaces resin composite (n = 1) was assessed using scanning electron microscopy (SEM). Analyses were performed using IBM SPSS 25 programme (p < 0.05). Results The highest bond strength was observed in the laser + SE group (22.69 ± 4.49), while the lowest was recorded in the control + SE group (14.12 ± 3.00). In the SE adhesive group, no significant difference was found between the laser + SE and bur + SE groups (p > 0.05). Similarly, in the SB adhesive group, there were no significant differences among the surface roughening procedures (p = 0.078). Additionally, no significant differences were observed between the adhesives according to various surface roughening procedures. The failure mode was predominantly cohesive in old composites. Conclusion The bond strength can be improved by surface treatments such as diamond burs, Er, Cr: YSGG laser application for better bonding strategies in the repair of nanohybrid resin composite restorations. There was no statistically significant difference in bond strength between the adhesives tested in this study.https://doi.org/10.1186/s12903-025-05807-8Composite resinLasersSurface treatmentsRepair |
| spellingShingle | Merve Kütük Ömeroğlu Melek Çam Işıl Doğruer Zeynep Buket Kaynar The effect of different surface treatments and adhesive systems on shear bond strength in universal nanohybrid composite resin repair BMC Oral Health Composite resin Lasers Surface treatments Repair |
| title | The effect of different surface treatments and adhesive systems on shear bond strength in universal nanohybrid composite resin repair |
| title_full | The effect of different surface treatments and adhesive systems on shear bond strength in universal nanohybrid composite resin repair |
| title_fullStr | The effect of different surface treatments and adhesive systems on shear bond strength in universal nanohybrid composite resin repair |
| title_full_unstemmed | The effect of different surface treatments and adhesive systems on shear bond strength in universal nanohybrid composite resin repair |
| title_short | The effect of different surface treatments and adhesive systems on shear bond strength in universal nanohybrid composite resin repair |
| title_sort | effect of different surface treatments and adhesive systems on shear bond strength in universal nanohybrid composite resin repair |
| topic | Composite resin Lasers Surface treatments Repair |
| url | https://doi.org/10.1186/s12903-025-05807-8 |
| work_keys_str_mv | AT mervekutukomeroglu theeffectofdifferentsurfacetreatmentsandadhesivesystemsonshearbondstrengthinuniversalnanohybridcompositeresinrepair AT melekcam theeffectofdifferentsurfacetreatmentsandadhesivesystemsonshearbondstrengthinuniversalnanohybridcompositeresinrepair AT isıldogruer theeffectofdifferentsurfacetreatmentsandadhesivesystemsonshearbondstrengthinuniversalnanohybridcompositeresinrepair AT zeynepbuketkaynar theeffectofdifferentsurfacetreatmentsandadhesivesystemsonshearbondstrengthinuniversalnanohybridcompositeresinrepair AT mervekutukomeroglu effectofdifferentsurfacetreatmentsandadhesivesystemsonshearbondstrengthinuniversalnanohybridcompositeresinrepair AT melekcam effectofdifferentsurfacetreatmentsandadhesivesystemsonshearbondstrengthinuniversalnanohybridcompositeresinrepair AT isıldogruer effectofdifferentsurfacetreatmentsandadhesivesystemsonshearbondstrengthinuniversalnanohybridcompositeresinrepair AT zeynepbuketkaynar effectofdifferentsurfacetreatmentsandadhesivesystemsonshearbondstrengthinuniversalnanohybridcompositeresinrepair |