Efficacy of different surface treatments and universal adhesives on the microtensile bond strength of bulk-fill composite repair

ŞİŞMANOĞLU S., Gürcan A. T., Yıldırım-Bilmez Z., GÜMÜŞTAŞ B.

Journal of Adhesion Science and Technology, vol.34, no.10, pp.1115-1127, 2020 (SCI-Expanded) identifier identifier

  • Publication Type: Article / Article
  • Volume: 34 Issue: 10
  • Publication Date: 2020
  • Doi Number: 10.1080/01694243.2019.1698202
  • Journal Name: Journal of Adhesion Science and Technology
  • Journal Indexes: Science Citation Index Expanded (SCI-EXPANDED), Scopus, Academic Search Premier, Aerospace Database, Chemical Abstracts Core, Chimica, Communication Abstracts, Compendex, INSPEC, Metadex, Civil Engineering Abstracts
  • Page Numbers: pp.1115-1127
  • Keywords: Universal adhesives, bulk-fill composites, resin composites, durability, bond strength
  • Istanbul Medipol University Affiliated: No


The purpose of this in vitro study was to evaluate the influence of different surface treatments and aging on the microtensile bond strength (μTBS) of bulk-fill composite resins. Bulk-fill composites (Filtek One; 3M ESPE) randomly received five different surface treatments: (1) no treatment, control, (2) 37% phosphoric acid etching (PA), (3) 9% hydrofluoric acid etching (HF), (4) air-borne particle abrasion with 50-μm alumina particles (Al2O3), (5) tribochemical silica coating (CoJet). Following, the specimens were divided into three subgroups according to universal adhesive applied: Clearfil Universal Bond (CU; Kuraray), Prime&Bond Universal (PBU; Dentsply Sirona), or Single Bond Universal (SBU; 3M ESPE). A nanofill composite (Filtek Ultimate; 3M ESPE) was employed as a repair. Bonded specimens were stored in water for 24 h at 37 °C or thermal aged, then subjected to the μTBS test. Additionally, specimens were analyzed with a contact profilometer and were evaluated with scanning electron microscopy. Control and PA treatments were showed the lowest µTBS (p < 0.05), and there was no significant difference between these two groups (p > 0.05). Al2O3 and CoJet treatments generally exhibited a similar influence on µTBS values. In addition, a correlation was found between surface roughness and bond strength (r = 0.831). CoJet resulted in significantly higher repair µTBS values when compared to the other surface treatments. In addition, the use of silane-containing universal adhesive was increased the cohesive failure rate and maintained the repair µTBS values after thermocycling.