PURPOSE: To evaluate the effect of different surface treatments and bonding procedures on the tensile bond strength (TBS) of resin composites repaired 6 months after polymerization. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Resin composite sticks were aged in distilled water at 37°C for 6 months. They were divided into 12 groups (n = 10) according to the combination of surface treatment/bonding procedures [none, only bur treatment, XP Bond (XPB/Dentsply/DeTrey) with/without bur, AdheSE (A-SE/Ivoclar/Vivadent) with/without bur, Composite Primer (CP/GC) with/without bur, CP after bur and acid-etching, XPB after acid etching and CP with bur, A-SE after bur and CP]. The ultimate tensile bond strength (UTS) of the resin composites was tested in intact but aged specimens. Tensile bond strengths were tested with a universal testing machine (Shimadzu). Data were analyzed using one-way ANOVA and Duncan Multiple Comparisons tests (p < 0.05). RESULTS: All repaired groups showed significantly higher TBS than the group without any sureface treatment (p < 0.05). Four groups resulted in TBS similar to those of intact resin composite UTS: A-SE, A-SE with bur, A-SE after CP with bur, and XPB after acid etching+CP with bur. CONCLUSION: Bur treatment, silane primer or etch-and-rinse adhesive application alone were not successful in the repair process of aged resin composite, whereas self-etching adhesive alone showed similar performance to the intact specimens. Combined procedures generally showed better performance: A-SE with bur, A-SE after CP with bur, and XPB after acid etching +CP with bur showed TBS similar to those of the intact specimens. It was concluded that bur roughening of the surfaces and rebonding procedures were essential for repairing aged resin composites.
PURPOSE: To evaluate the effect of different surface treatments and bonding procedures on the tensile bond strength (TBS) of resin composites repaired 6 months after polymerization. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Resin composite sticks were aged in distilled water at 37°C for 6 months. They were divided into 12 groups (n = 10) according to the combination of surface treatment/bonding procedures [none, only bur treatment, XP Bond (XPB/Dentsply/DeTrey) with/without bur, AdheSE (A-SE/Ivoclar/Vivadent) with/without bur, Composite Primer (CP/GC) with/without bur, CP after bur and acid-etching, XPB after acid etching and CP with bur, A-SE after bur and CP]. The ultimate tensile bond strength (UTS) of the resin composites was tested in intact but aged specimens. Tensile bond strengths were tested with a universal testing machine (Shimadzu). Data were analyzed using one-way ANOVA and Duncan Multiple Comparisons tests (p < 0.05). RESULTS: All repaired groups showed significantly higher TBS than the group without any sureface treatment (p < 0.05). Four groups resulted in TBS similar to those of intact resin composite UTS: A-SE, A-SE with bur, A-SE after CP with bur, and XPB after acid etching+CP with bur. CONCLUSION: Bur treatment, silane primer or etch-and-rinse adhesive application alone were not successful in the repair process of aged resin composite, whereas self-etching adhesive alone showed similar performance to the intact specimens. Combined procedures generally showed better performance: A-SE with bur, A-SE after CP with bur, and XPB after acid etching +CP with bur showed TBS similar to those of the intact specimens. It was concluded that bur roughening of the surfaces and rebonding procedures were essential for repairing aged resin composites.