Effects of Different Surface Conditioning Methods on the Bond Strength of Composite Resin to Amalgam

Creative Commons License

Oezcan M., KOOLMAN C., Aladag A. , Duendar M.

OPERATIVE DENTISTRY, vol.36, no.3, pp.318-325, 2011 (Journal Indexed in SCI) identifier identifier identifier

  • Publication Type: Article / Article
  • Volume: 36 Issue: 3
  • Publication Date: 2011
  • Doi Number: 10.2341/10-294-l
  • Title of Journal : OPERATIVE DENTISTRY
  • Page Numbers: pp.318-325


Repairing amalgam restorations with composite resins using surface conditioning methods is a conservative treatment approach. This study investigated the effects of different conditioning methods that could be used for repair of amalgam fractures. Amalgam (N=96) was condensed into cavities within autopolymerizing polymethylmethacrylate (PMMA), and the exposed surface of each specimen (diameter, 6 mm; thickness, 2 mm) was ground finished. The specimens were randomly divided into nine experimental groups (n=12 per group), depending on the conditioning method used. The control group had natural central incisors with amalgam (n=12). The combination of the following conditioning methods was tested: silicacoating (Sc), sandblasting (Sb), metal primers, coupling agents, fiber (Fb) application, and opaquers (O0). Five types of silanes, metal primers, or adhesives (Visiobond [V], Porcelain Photobond [PP], Alloy Primer [AP], Unibond sealer [Us], ESPE-Sil [ES]), and four opaquers, namely, Clearfil St Opaquer (CstO), Sinfony (S), Miris (M), and an experimental Opaquer (EO-Cavex), were used. The groups were as follows: group 1, Sc+ES+S+V; group 2, Sc+ES+CstO+V; group 3, Sc+ES+M+V; group 4, Sc+ES+EO+V; group 5, Sb+AP+S; group 6, Sb+AP+PP+CstO; group 7, Sc+ES+S+Fb+V+Fb; group 8-control, SC+ES+V; and group 9, Etch+Sc+ES+S+Us. One repair composite was used for all groups (Clearfil Photo Bond Posterior, Kuraray, Tokyo, Japan). Shear bond strengths (SBSs) (MPa +/- SD) were evaluated after 5 weeks of water storage (analysis of variance [ANOVA], Tukey honestly significant differences [HSD], alpha=0.05). Group 1 exhibited significantly higher values (35.5 +/- 4.1) than were seen in group 4 (19.4 +/- 8.9), group 6 (19.1 +/- 7.8), and group 8 (20.1 +/- 4.1) (p < 0.05). Group 9 exhibited significantly lower values (8.3 +/- 3.4) than were noted in groups 1 to 3 (35.5 +/- 4.1; 27 +/- 12.5; 24.4 +/- 5.1, respectively) (p < 0.05). Group 7 (16.4 +/- 5.9) showed significantly lower values than were observed in group 1 (35.5 +/- 4.1) (p < 0.05). Surface conditioning techniques affected the bond strengths of composite adhesion to amalgam. Experimental opaquer exhibited lower values. Leaving a small border of enamel around the restoration decreased the bond strength.