[Downloaded free from http://www.njcponline.com on Friday, March 4, 2022, IP: 103.109.172.

26]

Original Article

The Effect of Different Surface Roughening Systems on the Micro-Shear

Bond Strength of Aged Resin Composites
Öİ Karadağlioğlu, L Güleç Alagöz, A Çalişkan, G Aksoy Vaı̇ zoğlu

Department of Restorative
Dentistry, Near East Background: There are controversies regarding the most effective
Unı̇ versity, Faculty of surface treatment method to be applied for the effective repair of resin
Dentistry, Nicosia, Turkish composites. Aims: This study aimed to compare the effects of surface roughening
Republic of Northern Cyprus, processes on repair bond strength of different types of aged composites.
Turkey
Water aging was applied to 60 nanohybrid and 60 micro-hybrid resin composite
samples for 1 year. Samples were randomly divided into five groups and four
types of roughening processes. Bur, OPTIDISC, SUPERSNAP, and BISCO
were applied to the water-aged resin composite samples. Micro-shear test method
was used to measure the repair bond strength. Materials and Methods: Data
were analyzed with IBM SPSS V23. Compliance with normal distribution
was examined by Kolmogorov–Smirnov test. Two-way analysis of variance
(ANOVA) and Tukey HSD test for multiple comparisons were used.
Results: The main effect of the type of resin composites and surface
roughening methods were found to be significantly different. The MPa values
of surface roughening groups were similar while the lowest mean value was
Received: obtained for the untreated group of the nanohybrid resin composite (P <
25-Feb-2021; 0.001). The bond strength for both resin composites was generally considered
Revision: within acceptable limits except for no treatment group of nanohybrid resin
01-Mar-2021; composite. Conclusions: This study showed that surface roughening method is
Accepted: mandatory for effective bond strength and the type of fillers in resin composite
22-Jul-2021; affects the micro-shear bond strength.
Published:
19-Jan-2022 KEYWORDS: Bond strength, repair, resin composite, surface roughness,

INTRODUCTION affected and can cause injury of the dentin-pulp complex.

ne of the goals of modern restorative dentistry is Additionally, this application is time-consuming.[3]

O to make life-long restorations while preserving

sound dental tissue as much as possible.[1] However,
this is not the case in clinical practice. The duration
of restoration is affected by several factors such as
the clinical aspect, the ability of the operator, and the
properties of the materials used. A clinician should
know the fact that almost every restoration performed
may deteriorate.[1]
It was reported that dentists commonly renovate failed
restorations 10 years after placement.[2] However, the
replacement of restorations can cause significant damage
to sound tooth tissue if the preparation is expanded. In
this case, the longevity of the tooth vitality is negatively
Access this article online
Quick Response Code:
Website: www.njcponline.com
Modern dental treatment approaches suggest repair
procedures for suspicious restorations as alternative
methods.[1,4] Repair is a part of the “Minimally Invasive
Dentistry” concept that aims to preserve sound tooth
tissue, reduce invasive attempts, and keep the teeth
in function.[4] In this case, the bond strength between
Address for correspondence: Dr. Ö İ. Karadağ lioğ lu,
Near East University Faculty of Dentistry, Department of
Restorative Dentistry, Near East Boulevard, Nicosia, Mersin, 10,
Turkey, Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus.
E-mail: ozguilkcan.orozu@neu.edu.tr
This is an open access journal, and articles are distributed under the terms of the
Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 License, which allows
others to remix, tweak, and build upon the work non-commercially, as long as
appropriate credit is given and the new creations are licensed under the identical
terms.
For reprints contact: WKHLRPMedknow_reprints@wolterskluwer.com

DOI: 10.4103/njcp.njcp_95_21
How to cite this article: Karadağlioğlu Öİ, Alagöz LG, Çalişkan A,
Vai̇zoğlu GA. The Effect of Different Surface Roughening Systems on
the Micro-Shear Bond Strength of Aged Resin Composites. Niger J Clin
Pract 2022;25:37-43.

© 2022 Nigerian Journal of Clinical Practice | Published by Wolters Kluwer - 1

[Downloaded free from http://www.njcponline.com on Friday, March 4, 2022, IP: 103.109.172.26]
Karadağlioğlu, et al.: Surface treatment methods effect on aged composite
restorative material and repair material
important.[5]
The interface between old restorations and repair
materials can be defined as “the weakest link” that can
create fragility to the intraoral forces.[6] For this reason,
it is necessary to increase the bond strength to prevent
microleakage and provide ideal adaptation.[7]
To ensure bonding between layers of composite
materials, an oxygen-free polymerized resin layer must
present.[8] Since aged restorations do not contain this
layer, various methods are suggested to increase the
bond strength of materials. Surface roughening is one of
these treatment methods.[9] Surface roughening methods
stated as; roughening with diamond bur, and grinding
with silicon paper, sandblasting, roughening with discs,
air abrasion with aluminum oxide or silica particles
and chemical applications with phosphoric acid or
hydrofluoric acid.[10,11]
In light of the general information given above, this
study aims to evaluate the effect of surface roughening
with coarse diamond bur and discs on the bond strength
of two different aged composite resins. The first
hypothesis about the study is that the micro-shear bond
strength of resin composites with different filler types
will be different. The second hypothesis is that the most
abrasive disc of three different sets made of different
materials will provide more effective micro-shear bond
strength compared to a diamond bur.
MATERIAL AND METHODS
In this study, a total of 120 resin composite specimens
including 60 microhybrid resin composite (Filtek Z250,
3M ESPE, St. Paul, MN, USA) and 60 nanohybrid resin
composite (Clearfil Majesty Esthetic, Kuraray, Japan)
were used. A metal mold in 8 mm diameter and 2 mm
height was fixed on a glass slab with a transparent mylar
strip (Universal Strip, DML, Germany) below it and the
microhybrid and nanohybrid resin composite materials
were condensed in it. After condensation, another
transparent mylar strip was placed on the top of the
surface before curing to obtain a smooth surface. The
specimens were then polymerized with a light-emitting
diode (LED) unit (Woodpecker, Led.B, Curing Light,
China) for 40 s at 1000 mW/cm2 and then removed from
the mold. All of the specimens were polished with Super-
Snap Rainbow Kit (Shofu, Tokyo, Japan) as instructed.
The prepared samples were incubated (FN 400, Nuve,
Ankara, Turkey) at 37°C for 1 year in distilled water.
Care was taken to ensure that the samples were covered
with water. Water was changed once a week to prevent
bacterial growth. After 1 year all of the samples were
then glued on acrylic blocks. Then each composite group
(n = 60) was further
2 Nigerian Journal of Clinical Practice ¦ Volume 25 ¦ Issue 1 ¦ January
becomes divided into 5 groups (n = 12) according to their surface
roughening methods. The groups were as follows;
No treatment
Scotchbond Universal Adhesive (3M ESPE, St. Paul,
MN, USA) was applied on each specimen by rubbing the
micro-brush for 20 s, gently air-dried for approximately
5 s to evaporate the solvent and light-cured for 10 s.
BISCO
In this group, a diamond coarse brown disc of BISCO
(Schaumburg, IL, USA) was used with a low-speed
hand-piece under water-cooling for surface roughening.
The discs were applied to each specimen as three strikes
and a new disc was used in every four composite resin
specimens. Scotchbond Universal Adhesive was then
applied for 20 s, gently air-dried for approximately 5 s
to evaporate the solvent and light-cured for 10 s.
OPTIDISC
In this group, aluminum oxide extra coarse disc of
OPTIDISC (Kerr, Bioffio, Switzerland) was used with
low-speed hand-piece under water cooling for surface
roughening. The disc was applied to each specimen as
three strikes and a new disc was used in every four resin
composite discs. Scotchbond Universal Adhesive was
applied for 20 s, gently air-dried for 5 s. and light-cured
for 10 s.
SUPERSNAP
In this group, silicon carbide and aluminum oxide
coarse disc of Super-Snap Rainbow Kit was used
with low-speed handpiece under water-cooling. Then,
Scotchbond Universal Adhesive was applied as specified
in previous groups.
BUR
In this group, green-banded diamond bur with coarse
grain size (Meisinger Dental, Germany) was used for
surface roughening. Then, the same procedures were
applied as in the previous groups.
After adhesive application, three cylindrical polyethylene
Tygon tubes were placed on each specimen at three
different locations and light cured. The diameter and
height of polyethylene Tygon tubes were 1 mm. Then,
nanohybrid resin composites (Clearfil Majesty Esthetic)
were applied into cylindrical tubes and light-cured for
20 s. After curing, tubes are removed carefully with a
sharp lancet obtaining resin composite cylinders. All
specimens were stored in distilled water at 37°C for 24 h.
A micro-shear bond strength (SBS) test was
accomplished with a universal test machine (EZ-test-
500N Shimadzu, Kyoto, Japan) at a crossed speed of 1
mm/min. A thin wire (0,2 mm in diameter) was looped
around each cylindrical-shaped resin cylinder in contact
[Downloaded free from http://www.njcponline.com on Friday, March 4, 2022, IP: 103.109.172.26]
with the cylinder base. Force was directly

© 2022 Nigerian Journal of Clinical Practice | Published by Wolters Kluwer - 3

[Downloaded free from http://www.njcponline.com on Friday, March 4, 2022, IP: 103.109.172.26]

Karadağlioğlu, et al.: Surface treatment methods effect on aged

applied to the resin cylinders until the occurrence of
failure. The center of the load cell and the wire loop was
positioned as straight as possible to ensure the desired
orientation for micro-shear test stress. Micro-shear bond
strengths were expressed in Megapascale (MPa), as
derived from dividing the maximum load (N) at the time
of failure by the adhesion area (mm2).
Data were analyzed with IBM SPSS V23. Compliance
with normal distribution was examined by Kolmogorov–
Smirnov test. Two-way analysis of variance (ANOVA)
and Tukey HSD test for multiple comparisons were used
to compare MPa values according to resin composite
type and surface roughness. The results of the analysis
were presented as mean ± s deviation for quantitative
data. The significance level was taken as P < 0.05.
RESULTS
The two-way ANOVA results showed that the main
effect of the type of resin composite on MPA values was
observed significantly different (P < 0,001) [Table 1].
The mean
value of Filtek Z250 (26.05 MPa) was higher than the
mean value of Clearfil Majesty Esthetic (19.7 MPa)
indicating a significant difference. Additionally, the main
effect of the surface treatment procedures were found to
be significantly effective on MPA values (P < 0,001)
[Table 1]. This difference could be due to the fact that the
mean value of the no treatment group is lower than the
average of surface roughening groups [Table 2].
The interaction of resin composite and surface
roughening method was found to be statistically
significant on MPA values (P = 0.001) [Table 1]. While
the highest MPa mean value (29,47 MPa) was obtained
in the BISCO group of the Filtek Z250, the lowest mean
value (12,84 MPa) was obtained for the No Treatment
group of Clearfil Majesty Esthetic [Table 2].
Number of failure modes of the tested materials is shown
in Table 3. According to the results, the most observed
fracture patterns were cohesive type failures for both
Filtek Z250 (42%) and Clearfil Majesty Esthetic (54%).

Table 1: Two-way ANOVA results for the comparison of the MPA values of resin composite types and
surface
roughening methods
Total Square DF Average Square F P
Resin Composite 3555,629 1 3555,629 61,417 <0,001
Surface Roughening 2499,492 4 624,873 10,794 <0,001
Resin Composite* Surface Roughening 1145,775 4 286,444 4,948 0,001
†F: Statistics of Variance Test Analysis, DF: Degree of Freedom

Table 2: The mean values±standard deviations of the groups and multiple comparisons of MPA values
FILTEK Z250 CLEARFIL MAJESTY ESTHETIC Total
No Treatment 22,54±8,69BCD 12,84±6,71A 17,76±9,13a
BUR 26,03±7,3CDE 20,32±7,26BC 23,18±7,78b
SUPERSNAP 24,2±5,62 BCDE
24,36±8,18 BCDE
24,28±6,95b
BISCO 29,47±8,08 E
19,88±9,03 B
24,74±9,77b
OPTIDISC 28,19±6,96 DE
21,14±7,72 BC
24,71±8,11b
Total 26,05±7,75 19,7±8,61 22,91±8,77
†,a-b
The same upper-case letters indicate no statistically significant difference (P>0,05), A-E: The same upper-case letters indicate no
statistically significant difference (P>0,05)

Table 3: Fracture modes of specimens after micro-shear bond strength test

Fracture Modes
Study Groups Resin Composites Adhesive Cohesive Mixed
No treatment Filtek Z250 12 12 12
Clearfil Majesty Esthetic 22 4 10
BISCO Filtek Z250 3 21 12
Clearfil Majesty Esthetic 8 20 8
Bur Filtek Z250 3 20 13
Clearfil Majesty Esthetic 3 23 10
SUPERSNAP Filtek Z250 5 18 13
Clearfil Majesty Esthetic 5 28 3
OPTIDICS Filtek Z250 12 14 10
Clearfil Majesty Esthetic 9 23 4

Nigerian Journal of Clinical Practice ¦ Volume 25 ¦ Issue 1 ¦ January 3

[Downloaded free from http://www.njcponline.com on Friday, March 4, 2022, IP: 103.109.172.26]
Karadağlioğlu, et al.: Surface treatment methods effect on aged
In no treatment groups, Filtek Z250 exhibited equal rates
of failures (33%) for all three types and Clearfil Majesty
Esthetic showed 61% of adhesive type failure.
DISCUSSION
Resin composites, introduced in the 1960s, have become
more popular over time and nowadays, they are the
most preferred materials for direct restorations of
both anterior and posterior teeth.[12] Studies evaluating
the clinical life of posterior and anterior composite
restorations showed that their clinical performance was
sufficient and additionally, it was stated that the ratios of
their annual clinical failure differed from 1% to 4%. [12,13]
The most common causes of failure for resin composites
have been reported as fractures of restorative materials
and formation of secondary caries.[4]
With the introduction of adhesive systems in dentistry,
minimally invasive techniques have been preferred
and in recent years, instead of removing the whole
restoration, it has been suggested to repair only the
defective part.[4] Thus, it has been aimed to prevent
problems such as redundant extension of preparation,
pulpal damage, prolongation of treatment time, and
increase of treatment cost. [4] The most important factor
that affects the repair success for a defective restoration
is providing a safe bonding between pre-existing
restoration and the repair material.[5]
Several surface treatment methods have been used
for obtaining macro-mechanic, micro-mechanic, or
chemical bonding between pre-existing restoration and
repair material.[5] Nowadays, various studies conducted
about repair procedures are related to convenient
surface treatment methods that are applied to defective
restorations. There is not a clear consensus concerning
the best surface treatment method to be applied for
the repair procedures and this situation makes the
subject debatable. Therefore, the aim of this study was
to investigate the effect of various surface roughening
methods on the repair bond strength of two types of
resin composites.
Modern adhesive dentistry offers important advantages
such as preserving the sound tooth tissue and increasing
the durability of the restoration. A strong adhesion
between restorative resin and the tooth structure is the
main goal of adhesive dentistry. Strong evidence has
been obtained that the bond strength between new and
old resin composite increases when dentin bonding
agents are used in the repair procedure.[1] In clinical
practice, a variety of materials are required to be used
in the repair of aged composite restorations to ensure
adequate adhesion strength. “Universal adhesives”
are one of the newest categories in adhesive dentistry.
4 Nigerian Journal of Clinical Practice ¦ Volume 25 ¦ Issue 1 ¦ January
Universal adhesives are produced to bond to the tooth
structure and restorative materials with several
techniques without requiring additional primer
application.[14] These adhesives are easy to use, they can
be applied faster and are less technique sensitive
compared with multi-step adhesives.[14] Several
researchers reported the benefits of universal adhesives
on the bond strength of resin composites.[14,15] It has also
been stated that the silane, incorporated in universal
adhesives, increases the bond between the organic resin
matrix and the fillers and is effective in obtaining
durable restorations by increasing adhesion.[16,17] Thus, a
universal adhesive, Scotchbond Universal Adhesive was
used in this study.
The effect of different types of resin composites for
repair procedures has been studied for years.[1,18] The
properties of the composite material used in pre-existing
restorations are one of the important factors that
affect the success of the repair procedure to be applied.
[18]
Microhybrid resin composites are a combination of
universal composites containing 0.04 m sized silica
fillers and 0.4–0.7 m sized glass fillers. These materials
have wear resistance and high strength. Also, they can be
polished very well.[19] When evaluated clinically, they
perform well in terms of surface texture, marginal
integrity, anatomical form, and color match.[20]
Esthetic features and ease of use made micro-hybrid
resin composites a good alternative to the prior
composite restorative materials.[20] Increased esthetic
demands of patients have led to the production of
nanohybrid composites that increase the surface
properties of restorations with changes in the
formulation of fillers.[21] Nanohybrid resin composites
with nano-sized fillers present some advantages
such as strength, low polymerization shrinkage, high
polishability and high esthetic properties, due to their
increased filler contents.[21] In this study, microhybrid
composites (Filtek Z250), which are durable materials
as well as acceptable esthetic properties, and nanohybrid
composites (Clearfil Majesty Esthetic) with esthetically
superior properties were used as pre-existing restorative
materials. In a study, Özcan et al.,[22] compared the shear
bond strength of microhybrid and nanohybrid resin
composites and reported that they showed similar bond
strength values in early repairs. However, Junior et al.[11]
stated that the aged microhybrid composites exhibited
higher micro-tensile bond strength values compared to
aged nanohybrid composite resins. Similar to the results
of Junior et al’s[11] study, the micro-hybrid composite
(26,05 MPa) exhibited higher micro-shear bond strength
values than nano-hybrid resin composite (19,7 MPa)
in our study. Thus, the first hypothesis is accepted.
[Downloaded free from http://www.njcponline.com on Friday, March 4, 2022, IP: 103.109.172.26]

Karadağlioğlu, et al.: Surface treatment methods effect on aged

The difference between Özcan et al’s[22] and our
results

Nigerian Journal of Clinical Practice ¦ Volume 25 ¦ Issue 1 ¦ January 4

[Downloaded free from http://www.njcponline.com on Friday, March 4, 2022, IP: 103.109.172.26]
Karadağlioğlu, et al.: Surface treatment methods effect on aged
can be related to the aging process. Özcan et al.,[22]
concluded that their results are effective in early repairs
but in our study, we aged the samples for 1 year.
Some researchers preferred different repair materials
from pre-existing restorative materials because it is
often not possible to know the type of pre-existing resin
composite to be repaired under clinical conditions.[23,24]
In the literature repair procedures of nanohybrid resin
composites stated.[25] In a study conducted in 2015,
nanohybrid cylinder specimens were aged in distilled
water for 24 hours and treated with several surface
treatment methods. After the surface treatments, repair
applications were demonstrated on these samples with
nanohybrid, microhybrid and microfilled composites.
The results showed that nanohybrid resin composites
showed the highest shear bond strength.[26] Nano-hybrid
resin composites were used as repair material in our
study. Repair bond strength of nanohybrid resin
composite to the tested specimens was between 19,88
MPa and 29,47 MPa except for no treatment group of
Clearfil Majesty Esthetic (12.84 MPa). Acceptable bond
strength threshold values for repairability are specified in
the literature as 15 to 25 MPa.[27] Since the values of
all tested specimens except no treatment group of Clearfil
Majesty Esthetic were above the specified limit, it can
be interpreted that nanohybrid resin composite can be
suitable as a repair material except for no treatment
group of Clearfil Majesty Esthetic.
Surface treatment methods applied to old restorations
significantly affect the bond strength. The purpose of
the surface treatments performed was to increase the
surface roughness.[10] Roughening with diamond bur
is the most commonly used surface treatment method
and its use is suggested clinically in the repair of resin
composite restorations since it is more effective than
other treatment methods.[28] However, there is not a
standardized grain size for the diamond bur to be used.
It is only known that particle size should be between
25 to 100 m for roughening.[17] The fact that the
diamond bur is an effective surface roughening method
has led us to question the effect of roughening with the
most abrasive discs of 3 types of finishing and polishing
systems. To the best of our knowledge, the information
about the effect of surface treatment with discs was very
limited.[25] In this study, the effect on the micro-shear
bond strength of diamond bur, diamond discs, aluminum
oxide abrasive particles containing discs and silicon
carbide abrasive particles containing discs with coarse
or extra-coarse grain sizes were compared. The results
of the study showed that the “no treatment” groups
exhibited statistically lower micro-shear bond strength
values than the other surface treatment groups. These
4 Nigerian Journal of Clinical Practice ¦ Volume 25 ¦ Issue 1 ¦ January
results highlight the necessity of surface roughening
for the repair of resin composites. Since there is not
a significant difference between surface roughening
groups, it can be interpreted that discs can be used as
effectively as diamond bur in case of surface treatment.
Also, it can be concluded that the grain size and the
material of the grain are not important for the surface
roughening procedures. Thus, the second hypothesis is
rejected.
Artificial aging methods allow the deterioration of
materials that can be observed in longer periods to
be evaluated in a short time.[29] Researchers used
several methods to duplicate the aging process of resin
composites, such as immersion in artificial saliva, storage
of the material in acids at 37°C, thermocycling, water
immersion.[29,30] Some researchers chose the thermal
method for aging,[16,31] while most researchers chose the
water aging method.[31,32] In this study, the samples were
stored in distilled water for 1 year and the water aging
technique was simulated as many researchers do.[31,32]
Water aging method may cause some alterations in the
resin composite samples as the absorption of water
by the resin matrix makes the composite resin more
flexible.[30]
In No Treatment groups that the lowest micro-shear
bond strength values were obtained, the highest
frequency of failure seen for nanohybrid resin composite
was adhesive and the lowest frequency seen was
cohesive whereas equal failure frequencies were seen in
micro-hybrid groups. In surface-treated groups, that had
significantly higher bond strength values than control
groups but similar bond strength values among each
other, cohesive failure types were seen mainly for both
resin composites. In a study in which the microshear
and microtensile bond strengths of the same samples
were measured, it was reported that less adhesive failure
was found in the microshear test method, and more
adhesive failure was observed in the microtensile test
method.[33] Observation of more cohesive failures in our
study may be due to the microshear test method used.
The microshear test method was chosen in this study
because of its advantages such as being a simple test
method, having lower incidence of pre-testing failures [34]
and ease in the specimen preparation.[35] However, as the
failure occurs at a different location from the interface
due to the concentration of stress on the substrate
material may affect the results that can be specified as
a limitation for this study. It can be recommended to
support the study with different bond strength tests in
order to get effective results.
The other limitations of this study can be attributed to
the use of one type resin composite as repair material.
[Downloaded free from http://www.njcponline.com on Friday, March 4, 2022, IP: 103.109.172.26]
Karadağlioğlu, et al.: Surface treatment methods effect on aged
Since each type of resin composite has different physical
properties, using a different resin composite as a repair
material may affect the results. Apart from that, using
different types of aging methods combined with the
water aging method will simulate the clinical conditions
better and this could lead to more reliable results.
CONCLUSIONS
When the data obtained from the study are evaluated it
can be concluded that the filler type of resin composite
affects the bond strength, the micro-shear bond strength
values of both types of composites are within repairable
limits except no treatment group of nanohybrid
composite and surface roughening is mandatory for an
effective repair bond strength.
Key Messages: Surface roughness would be required for
the repair process in aged resin composites, and the use
of finishing discs for roughening will be as effective as
using a bur.
Financial support and sponsorship
Nil.
Conflicts of interest
There are no conflicts of interest.
REFERENCES
1. Blum IR, Lynch CD and Wilson NHF. Factors influencing repair
of dental restorations with resin composite. Clin Cosmet Investig
Dent 2014;6:81-7.
2. Fernández E, Martín J, Vildósola P, Oliveira Junior OB,
Gordan V, Mjor I, et al. Can repair increase the longevity of
composite resins? Results of a 10-year clinical trial. J Dent
2015;43:279-86.
3. Mjör IA, Moorhead JE, Dahl JE. Reasons for replacement of
restorations in permanent teeth in general dental practice. Int
Dent J 2000;50:361-6.
4. Hickel R, Brüshaver K, Ilie N. Repair of restorations-Criteria
for decision making and clinical recommendations. Dent Mater
2013;29:28-50.
5. Loomans BAC, Cardoso MV, Opdam NJM, Roeters FJ,
De Munck J, Huysmans MC, et al. Surface roughness of
etched composite resin in light of composite repair. J Dent
2011;39:499-505.
6. Lima AF, Ferreira SFA, Catelan A, Palialol AR, Gonçalves LS,
Aguiar FH, et al. The effect of surface treatment and bonding
procedures on the bond strength of silorane composite repairs.
Acta Odontol Scand 2014;72:71-5.
7. Lucena-Martín C, González-López S,
Navajas-Rodríguez De Mondelo JM. The effect of various
surface treatments and bonding agents on the repaired strength of
heat-treated composites. J Prosthet Dent 2001;86:481-8.
8. Moszner N, Salz U. New developments of polymeric dental
composites. Prog Polym Sci 2001;26:535-76.
9. Moszner N, Klapdohr S. Nanotechnology for dental composites.
Int J Nanotechnol 2004;1:130-56.
10. Eliasson ST, Tibballs J, Dahl JE. Effect of different surface
treatments and adhesives on repair bond strength of resin
Nigerian Journal of Clinical Practice ¦ Volume 25 ¦ Issue 1 ¦ January
composites after one and 12 months of storage using an
improved microtensile test method. Oper Dent 2014;39:E206-16.
11. Junior SAR, Ferracane JL, Bona Á Della. Influence of surface
treatments on the bond strength of repaired resin composite
restorative materials. Dent Mater 2009;25:442-51.
12. Demarco FF, Collares K, Correa MB, Cenci MS, Moraes RR,
Opdam NJ. Should my composite restorations last forever? Why
are they failing? Braz Oral Res 2017;31:92-9.
13. Demarco FF, Corrêa MB, Cenci MS, Moraes RR, Opdam NJ.
Longevity of posterior composite restorations: Not only a matter
of materials. Dent Mater 2012;28:87-101.
14. Chen C, Niu L-N, Xie H, Zhang ZY, Zhou LQ, Jiao K, et al.
Bonding of universal adhesives to dentine – Old wine in new
bottles? J Dent 2015;43:525-36.
15. Shokripor M, Soufi LR, Ahmadi B, Najafrad E, Mosleh MA.
Comparison the effect of different surface treatments on shear
bond strength of repaired composite. Avicenna J Dent Res
2019;11:30-6.
16. Joulaei M, Bahari M, Ahmadi A, Savadi Oskoee S. Effect of
different surface treatments on repair micro-shear bond strength
of silica- and zirconia-filled composite resins. J Dent Res Dent
Clin Dent Prospects 2012;6:131-7.
17. Imbery TA, Gray T, DeLatour F, Boxx C, Best AM, Moon PC.
Evaluation of flexural, diametral tensile, and shear bond strength
of composite repairs. Oper Dent 2014;39:E250-60.
18. Kholief E, Mahmoud ES, El Chabrawy S. Shear bond strength
for immediate and delayed repair of composite with microhybrid
and nanohybrid resins using different bonding agents. Alexandria
Dent J 2020;45:104-10.
19. Sakauchi RL, Subita BM. Restorative materials: Resin
composites and polymers. In: Sakaguchi RL, Ferracane JL,
Powers JM, editors. Craig’s Restorative Dental Materials.
Mussouri: Elsevier; 2019. p. 135-70.
20. Folwaczny M, Loher C, Mehl A, Kunzelmann KH, Hickel R.
Class V lesions restored with four different tooth-colored
materials--3-year results. Clin Oral Investig 2001;5:31-9.
21. Angerame D and De Biasi M. Do nanofilled/nanohybrid
composites allow for better clinical performance of direct
restorations than traditional microhybrid composites? A
systematic review. Oper Dent 2018;43:E191-209.
22. Özcan M, Cura C, Brendeke J. Effect of aging conditions on the
repair bond strength of a microhybrid and a nanohybrid resin
composite. J Adhes Dent 2010;12:451-9.
23. Brosh T, Pilo R, Bichacho N, Blutstein R. Effect of combinations
of surface treatments and bonding agents on the bond strength of
repaired composites. J Prosthet Dent 1997;77:122-6.
24. Bektas ÖÖ, Eren D, Siso SH, Akin GE. Effect of thermocycling
on the bond strength of composite resin to bur and laser treated
composite resin. Lasers Med Sci 2012;27:723-8.
25. Moncada G, Angel P, Fernandez E, Alonso P, Martin J,
Gordan VV. Bond strength evaluation of nanohybrid resin-based
composite repair. Gen Dent 2012;60:230-4.
26. Demirtas HK, Akin M, Ileri Z, Basciftci FA. Shear-bond-strength
of orthodontic brackets to aged nano-hybrid composite resin
surfaces using different surface preparation. Dent Mater J
2015;34:86-90.
27. Teixeira EC, Bayne SC, Thompson JY, Ritter AV, Swift EJ.
Shear bond strength of self-etching bonding systems in
combination with various composites used for repairing aged
composites. J Adhes Dent 2005;7:159-64.
28. Moradi M, Hormozi E, Shamohammadi M, Rakhshan V. Effects
of debonding of orthodontic brackets on topography and surface
roughness of composite restorations. Int Orthod 2018;16:623-37.
4
[Downloaded free from http://www.njcponline.com on Friday, March 4, 2022, IP: 103.109.172.26]

Karadağlioğlu, et al.: Surface treatment methods effect on aged

29. Veiga de Melo MA, Moysés MR, dos Santos SG, Alcântara CE,
Ribeiro JC. Effects of different surface treatments and accelerated
artificial aging on the bond strength of composite resin repairs.
Braz Oral Res 2011;25:485-91.
30. de Souza MO, Leitune VCB, Rodrigues SB, Samuel SM,
Collares FM. One-year aging effects on microtensile bond
strengths of composite and repairs with different surface
treatments. Braz Oral Res 2017;31:1-7.
31. Loomans BAC, Vivan Cardoso M, Roeters FJM, Opdam NJ,
De Munck J, Huysmans MC, et al. Is there one optimal repair
technique for all composites? Dent Mater 2011;27:701-9.
32. Souza EM, Francischone CE, Powers JM, Rached RN, Vieira S.
Effect of different surface treatments on the repair bond strength
of indirect composites. Am J Dent 2008;21:93-6.
33. Fornazari IA, Brum RT, Rached RN, de Souza EM. Reliability
and correlation between microshear and microtensile bond
strength tests of composite repairs. J Mech Behav Biomed Mater
2020;103:103607. doi: 10.1016/j.jmbbm. 2019.103607.
34. de Andrade AM, Moura SK, Reis A, Loguercio AD, Garcia EJ,
Grande RH. Evaluating resin-enamel bonds by microshear and
microtensile bond strength tests: Effects of composite resin.
J Appl Oral Sci 2010;18:591-8.
35. Campos RE, Santos Filho PCF, de O. Júnior OB, Ambrosano
GMB, Pereira CA. Comparative evaluation of 3 microbond
strength tests using 4 adhesive systems: Mechanical, finite
element, and failure analysis. J Prosthet Dent 2018;119:166-74.

4 Nigerian Journal of Clinical Practice ¦ Volume 25 ¦ Issue 1 ¦ January