Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Shear Bond Strength of Different Adhesive Systems in Amalgam Repair

  • Published:
Strength of Materials Aims and scope

The purpose was to evaluate the effect of different adhesive systems on shear-bond-strength between amalgam and resin composite. 48 amalgam specimens were condensed into plastic tubes (4 mm diameter × 5 mm height). The specimens were kept in incubator for 24 h at 37°C, aged by thermal cycling 1000 times between 5–55°C. The specimens’ surfaces were finished with coarse diamond burs and randomly divided into 4 groups (n = 12) with respect to different surface conditioning methods: etchant+universal adhesive (All-Bond Universal, Bisco), universal adhesive, alloy primer (Z-Prime, Bisco)+universal adhesive, self-adhesive resin cement (BisCem, Bisco). The old amalgam specimens were placed into plastic tubes (4 mm diameter × 8 mm height) and all adhesive systems were used according to manufacturer’s instructions. Resin composite (Charisma Classic, Haraeus Kulzer) was placed and polymerized 20 s. The samples were incubated in distilled water at 37°C for 24 h prior to the shear-bond-strength test. The shear-bond-strength test was accomplished using a universal testing device. Statistical analyzes were made with One-way ANOVA and Tukey HSD tests. There was no significant difference between self-adhesive resin cement and alloy primer applied groups but showed better bond strength values than self-etch and etch&rinse adhesive applied groups. The application of self-adhesive resin cement and alloy primer+universal adhesive in amalgam repair exhibited successful outcomes.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1.
Fig. 2.
Fig. 3.
Fig. 4.

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. J. Osborne, J. Summitt, and H. Roberts, “The use of dental amalgam in pediatric dentistry: review of the literature,” Pediatr. Dent., 24, No. 5, 439–447 (2002).

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  2. J. D. Bader, D. A. Shugars, and J. A. Martin, “Risk indicators for posterior tooth fracture,” J. Am. Dent. Assoc., 135, No. 7, 883–892 (2004).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. R. Hickel and J. Manhart, “Longevity of restorations in posterior teeth and reasons for failure,” J. Adhes. Dent., 3, No. 1, 45–64 (2001).

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  4. G. Moncada, E. Fernández, J. Martin, et al., “Increasing the longevity of restorations by minimal intervention: a two-year clinical trial,” Oper. Dent., 33, No. 3, 258–264 (2008).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. J. Setcos, R. Khosravi, N. Wilson, et al., “Repair or replacement of amalgam restorations: decisions at a USA and a UK dental school,” Oper. Dent., 29, No. 4, 392–397 (2004).

    Google Scholar 

  6. G. Moncada, J. Martin, E. Fernández, et al., “Sealing, refurbishment and repair of Class I and Class II defective restorations,” J. Am. Dent. Assoc., 140, No. 4, 425–432 (2009).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. G. Moncada, J. Martin J, E. Fernández, et al., “Alternative treatments for resin-based composite and amalgam restorations with marginal defects: a 12-month clinical trial,” Gen. Dent., 54, No. 5, 314–318 (2006).

  8. S. Çehreli, N. Arhun, and C. Celik, “Amalgam Repair: Quantitative evaluation of amalgam-resin and resin-tooth interfaces with different surface treatments,” Oper. Dent., 35, No. 3, 337–344 (2010).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. M. Özcan, G. Schoonbeek, B. Gökçe, et al., “Bond strength comparison of amalgam repair protocols using resin composite in situations with and without dentin exposure,” Oper. Dent., 35, No. 6, 655–662 (2010).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. N. Ruse, R. Sekimoto, and D. Feduik, “The effect of amalgam surface preparation on the shear bond strength between composite and amalgam,” Oper. Dent., 20, 180–185 (1995).

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  11. M. Özcan, C. Koolman, A. Aladag, et al., “Effects of different surface conditioning methods on the bond strength of composite resin to amalgam,” Oper. Dent., 36, No. 3, 318–325 (2011).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Y. H. Al-Jazairy, “Shear peel bond strength of compomers veneered to amalgam,” J. Prosthet. Dent., 85, No. 4, 396–400 (2001).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  13. I. R. Blum, K. Hafiana, A. Curtis, et al., “The effect of surface conditioning on the bond strength of resin composite to amalgam,” J. Dent., 40, No. 1, 15–21 (2012).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  14. R. Hickel, A. Peschke, M. Tyas, et al., “FDI World Dental Federation: clinical criteria for the evaluation of direct and indirect restorations – update and clinical examples,” Clin. Oral Investig., 14, No. 4, 349–366 (2010).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. B. Loomans, M. V. Cardoso, F. Roeters, et al., “Is there one optimal repair technique for all composites?” Dent. Mater., 27, No. 7, 701–709 (2011).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  16. B. Loomans, M. Cardoso, N. Opdam, et al., “Surface roughness of etched composite resin in light of composite repair,” J. Dent., 39, No. 7, 499–505 (2011).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  17. M. Özcan, P. H. Corazza, S. M. S. Marocho, et al., “Repair bond strength of microhybrid, nanohybrid and nanofilled resin composites: effect of substrate resin type, surface conditioning and ageing,” Clin. Oral Investig., 17, No. 7, 1751–1758 (2013).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. M. Özcan and G. Pekkan, “Effect of different adhesion strategies on bond strength of resin composite to composite-dentin complex,” Oper. Dent., 38, No. 1, 63–72 (2013).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. M. Özcan, P. Vallittu, M.-C. Huysmans, et al., “Bond strength of resin composite to differently conditioned amalgam,” J. Mater. Sci.-Mater. M., 17, No. 1, 7–13 (2006).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. G. Alex, “Universal adhesives: the next evolution in adhesive dentistry?” Compend. Contin. Educ. Dent., 36, No. 1, 15–26 (2015).

    Google Scholar 

  21. J. G. dos Santos, R. G. Fonseca, G. L. Adabo, et al., “Shear bond strength of metal-ceramic repair systems,” J. Prosthet. Dent., 96, No. 3, 165–173 (2006).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. B. Loomans and M. Özcan, “Intraoral repair of direct and indirect restorations: procedures and guidelines,” Oper. Dent., 41, S68–S78 (2016).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. L. Casagrande, M. Laske, E. M. Bronkhorst, et al., “Repair may increase survival of direct posterior restorations–A practice based study,” J. Dent., 64, 30–36 (2017).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. R. Adam and S. Naidoo, “The use and repair of dental amalgam restorations as practised in South Africa,” S. Afr. Dent. J., 72, No. 8, 366–371 (2017).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. V. V. Gordan, J. L. Riley, III, P. K. Blaser, et al., “Alternative treatments to replacement of defective amalgam restorations: results of a seven-year clinical study,” J. Am. Dent. Assoc., 142, No. 7, 842–849 (2011).

  26. C. Shen, J. Speigel, and I. Mjor, “Repair strength of dental amalgams,” Oper. Dent., 31, No. 1, 122–126 (2006).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. M. Giannini, L. A. M. S. Paulillo, and G. M. B. Ambrosano, “Effect of surface roughness on amalgam repair using adhesive systems,” Braz. Dent. J., 13, No. 3, 179–183 (2002).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. R. M. Lubow and R. L. Cooley, “Effect of air-powder abrasive instrument on restorative materials,” J. Prosthet. Dent., 55, No. 4, 462–465 (1986).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  29. R. E. Goldstein and F. M. Parkins, “Air-abrasive technology: its new role in restorative dentistry,” J. Am. Dent. Assoc., 125, No. 5, 551–557 (1994).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  30. B. S. Lim, S. M. Heo, Y. K. Lee, and C. W. Kim, “Shear bond strength between titanium alloys and composite resin: Sandblasting versus fluoride-gel treatment,” J. Biomed. Mater. Res. B Appl. Biomater., 64, No. 1, 38–43 (2003).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. N. V. Ballal, D. Khandelwal, K. S. Bhat, et al., “Effect of various surface treatments on shear bond strength of repaired amalgam – an in vitro study,” Int. J. Clin. Dent., 7, No. 4, 315–325 (2015).

    Google Scholar 

  32. W. W. Barkmeier and M. A. Latta, “Laboratory evaluation of a metal-priming agent for adhesive bonding,” Quintessence Int., 31, No. 10, 749–752 (2000).

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  33. A. Mikami, “Comparative evaluation of metal priming agents applied for bonding of magnetic stainless steel with acrylic repair resin,” J. Oral Sci., 49, No. 4, 277–281 (2007).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. M. Kern and V. P. Thompson, “Bonding to glass infiltrated alumina ceramic: adhesive methods and their durability,” J. Prosthet. Dent., 73, No. 3, 240–249 (1995).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  35. S. M. Wegner and M. Kern, “Long-term resin bond strength to zirconia ceramic,” J. Adhes. Dent., 2, No. 2, 139–147 (2000).

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  36. B. Miller, K. Arita, N. Tamura, et al., “Bond strengths of various materials to dentin using Amalgambond,” Am. J. Dent., 5, No. 5, 272–276 (1992).

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  37. S.-S. Choo, Y.-H. Huh, L.-R. Cho, et al., “Effect of metal primers and tarnish treatment on bonding between dental alloys and veneer resin,” J. Adv. Prosthodont., 7, No. 5, 392–399 (2015).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  38. H. Balkaya, S. Demirbuga, N. N. Çakir, et al., “Micro-shear bond strength of universal adhesives used for amalgam repair with or without Alloy Primer,” J. Conserv. Dent., 21, No. 3, 274–279 (2018).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  39. D. R. Haselton, A. M. Diaz-Arnold, and J. T. Dunne, Jr, “Shear bond strengths of 2 intraoral porcelain repair systems to porcelain or metal substrates,” J. Prosthet. Dent., 86, No. 5, 526–531 (2001).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  40. M. Dündar, M. Özcan, B. Gökçe, et al., “Comparison of two bond strength testing methodologies for bilayered all-ceramics,” Dent. Mater., 23, No. 5, 630–636 (2007).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  41. F. Tulumbaci, M. E. Almaz, V. Arikan, and M. S. Mutluay, “Shear bond strength of different restorative materials to mineral trioxide aggregate and Biodentine,” J. Conserv. Dent., 20, No. 5, 292 (2017).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgment

The present study was supported by Scientific Research Projects Commitee of Baskent University with a grant number of D-KA 18/27.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Baskent University, Faculty of Dentistry, Department of Restorative Dentistry, Ankara, Turkey

    Ö. Erçin, F. Alkan & N. Arhun

Authors
  1. Ö. Erçin
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. F. Alkan
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. N. Arhun
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Ö. Erçin.

Additional information

Translated from Problemy Prochnosti, No. 5, pp. 131 – 138, September – October, 2020.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Erçin, Ö., Alkan, F. & Arhun, N. Shear Bond Strength of Different Adhesive Systems in Amalgam Repair. Strength Mater 52, 805–811 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11223-020-00234-2

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11223-020-00234-2

Keywords

Search

Navigation