Effect of Tribochemical Coating on Composite Repair Strength

• Published in: Operative dentistry Vol. 45; no. 6; p. E334
• Main Authors: Ritter, A V, Sulaiman, T, Altitinchi, A, Baratto-Filho, F, Gonzaga, C C, Correr, G M
• Format: Journal Article
• Language: English
• Published: United States 01.11.2020
• Subjects: Composite Resins; Dental Bonding; Dental Cements; Materials Testing; Resin Cements; Silanes; Surface Properties; Tensile Strength
• ISSN: 1559-2863
• DOI: 10.2341/19-145-L

Tribochemical treatment of existing composite surfaces is highly effective for composite repair. When repairing an old composite restoration, the clinician should try to use the same composite originally used for the restoration. If the information about the original restoration is not known, a composite with strong mechanical properties should be used for the repair restoration. This study evaluated the effect of tribochemical coating on composite-to-composite repair interfacial fracture toughness (iFT). Sixty beam-shaped specimens (21×4×3 ± 0.2 mm) were prepared with a nanofill composite (Filtek Supreme Ultra [FSU]) and a nanohybrid composite (Clearfil Majesty ES-2 [CME]) and aged for 50,000 thermocycles (5°C-55°C, 20-second dwell time) and then sectioned in half. The resulting 120 hemispecimens (60 for each composite) were randomly assigned to different repair methods (n=10): universal adhesive (Clearfil Universal Bond Quick [CUB]), sand-blasting followed by CUB, or tribochemical coating (CoJet, CoJet sand, Espe-Sil, and Visio-Bond). The repair surface was prepared with a diamond bur (Midwest #471271), rinsed, and dried. Each aged composite brand (FSU, CME) was repaired with either the same composite or the opposite composite. All adhesives and composites were light cured with a high-irradiance LED curing light (Elipar DeepCure-S). After postrepair storage in 100% humidity and at 37°C for 24 hours, iFT was measured as KIc (MPa m½). Data were analyzed for statistical significance using two-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) and the Tukey honest significant difference post hoc test (α=0.05). Regardless of the substrate composite, ANOVA showed significant differences for surface treatment (p<0.0001) and repair composite (p<0.0001). Mean iFT values (SD) ranged from 0.91 (0.10) MPa·m½ to 2.68 (0.12) MPa·m½. Repairs made with FSU after CoJet resulted in significantly higher iFT (FSU: 2.68 MPa·m½; CME: 2.21 MPa·m½) when compared to the other experimental groups. The repair iFT was higher with CoJet treatment and when the nanofill composite FSU was used as the repair composite.