Repair Bond Strength in Aged Methacrylate- and Silorane-based Composites

Purpose: To evaluate the tensile bond strength at repaired interfaces of aged dental composites, either dimethacrylate- or silorane-based, when subjected to different surface treatments. Materials and Methods: The composites used were Filtek P60 (methacrylate-based, 3M ESPE) and Filtek P90 (silorane-based, 3M ESPE), of which 50 slabs were stored for 6 months at 37°C. The surface of adhesion was abraded with a 600-grit silicone paper and the slabs repaired with the respective composite, according to the following surface treatment protocols: G1: no treatment; G2: adhesive application; G3: silane + adhesive; G4: sandblasting (Al2O3) + adhesive; G5: sandblasting (Al2O3) + silane + adhesive. After 24-h storage in distilled water at 37°C, tensile bond strength (TBS) was determined in a universal testing machine (Instron 4411) at a crosshead speed of 0.5 mm/min. The original data were submitted to two-way ANOVA and Tukey's test (α = 5%). Results: The methacrylate-based composite presented a statistically significantly higher repair potential than did the silorane-based resin (p = 0.0002). Of the surface treatments for the silorane-based composite, aluminum-oxide air abrasion and adhesive (18.5 ± 3.3MPa) provided higher bond strength than only adhesive application or the control group without surface treatment. For Filtek P60, the control without treatment presented lower repair strength than all other groups with surface treatments, which were statistically similar to each other. The interaction between the factors resin composite and surface treatment was significant (p = 0.002). Conclusion: For aged silorane-based materials, repairs were considered successful after sandblasting (Al2O3) and adhesive application. For methacrylate resin, repair was successful with all surface treatments tested. Palabras clave: resin composites, silorane, adhesive dentistry, bond strength