Efficacy of different surface treatments and universal adhesives on the microtensile bond strength of bulk-fill composite repair

Basit Öğe Kaydı
dc.contributor.authorŞişmanoğlu, Soner
dc.contributor.authorGürcan, Aliye Tuğçe
dc.contributor.authorYıldırım-Bilmez, Zuhal
dc.contributor.authorGümüştaş, Burak
dc.date.accessioned2021-05-15T11:34:09Z
dc.date.available2021-05-15T11:34:09Z
dc.date.issued2020
dc.departmentDiş Hekimliği Fakültesien_US
dc.descriptionGumustas, Burak/0000-0002-7538-1763; Sismanoglu, Soner/0000-0002-1272-5581; Gurcan, Aliye Tugce/0000-0002-8444-1780; Yildirim Bilmez, Zuhal/0000-0002-8869-2261
dc.description.abstractThe purpose of this in vitro study was to evaluate the influence of different surface treatments and aging on the microtensile bond strength (mu TBS) 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-mu m 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 degrees C or thermal aged, then subjected to the mu TBS test. Additionally, specimens were analyzed with a contact profilometer and were evaluated with scanning electron microscopy. Control and PA treatments were showed the lowest mu TBS (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 mu TBS values. In addition, a correlation was found between surface roughness and bond strength (r = 0.831). CoJet resulted in significantly higher repair mu TBS 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 mu TBS values after thermocycling.en_US
dc.identifier.doi10.1080/01694243.2019.1698202
dc.identifier.endpage1127en_US
dc.identifier.issn0169-4243
dc.identifier.issn1568-5616
dc.identifier.issue10en_US
dc.identifier.scopus2-s2.0-85076392231
dc.identifier.scopusqualityQ2
dc.identifier.startpage1115en_US
dc.identifier.urihttps://doi.org/10.1080/01694243.2019.1698202
dc.identifier.urihttps://hdl.handle.net/20.500.12939/286
dc.identifier.volume34en_US
dc.identifier.wosWOS:000501424900001
dc.identifier.wosqualityQ2
dc.indekslendigikaynakWeb of Science
dc.indekslendigikaynakScopus
dc.institutionauthorŞişmanoğlu, Soner
dc.language.isoen
dc.publisherTaylor & Francis Ltden_US
dc.relation.ispartofJournal of Adhesion Science and Technology
dc.relation.publicationcategoryMakale - Uluslararası Hakemli Dergi - Kurum Öğretim Elemanıen_US
dc.rightsinfo:eu-repo/semantics/closedAccessen_US
dc.subjectUniversal Adhesivesen_US
dc.subjectBulk-Fill Compositesen_US
dc.subjectResin Compositesen_US
dc.subjectDurabilityen_US
dc.subjectBond Strengthen_US
dc.titleEfficacy of different surface treatments and universal adhesives on the microtensile bond strength of bulk-fill composite repair
dc.typeArticle

Dosyalar

Koleksiyon

WoS İndeksli Yayınlar Koleksiyonu
Diş Hekimliği Fakültesi Yayın Koleksiyonu
Scopus İndeksli Yayınlar Koleksiyonu