Influence of Surface Treatments on the Bond Strength of a Self-Adhesive Bulk-Fill Composite Resin to Cut and Uncut Enamel: An In-Vitro Study

Zahra Jowkar; Fereshteh Shafiei; Zahra Lotfhaghpanah; Zahra Sajedianfard; Seyed Ahmadreza Hamidi

doi:10.18502/fid.v22i45.20296

Zahra Jowkar Oral and Dental Disease Research Center, Department of Operative Dentistry, School of Dentistry, Shiraz University of Medical Sciences, Shiraz, Iran
Fereshteh Shafiei Oral and Dental Disease Research Center, Department of Operative Dentistry, School of Dentistry, Shiraz University of Medical Sciences, Shiraz, Iran
Zahra Lotfhaghpanah Department of Operative Dentistry, School of Dentistry, Shiraz University of Medical Sciences, Shiraz, Iran
Zahra Sajedianfard Department of Operative Dentistry, School of Dentistry, Shiraz University of Medical Sciences, Shiraz, Iran
Seyed Ahmadreza Hamidi Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, School of Dentistry, Shiraz University of Medical Sciences, Shiraz, Iran

DOI: https://doi.org/10.18502/fid.v22i45.20296

Keywords: Composite Resins; Dental Enamel; Shear Strength; Smear Layer

Abstract

Objectives: The objective of this study was to investigate how various surface treatments impact the microshear bond strength (μSBS) of a self-adhesive bulk-fill composite resin to cut and uncut enamel.

Materials and Methods: Eighty sound human third molars were collected in this in vitro study. Forty were prepared to create cut enamel surfaces, and 40 were left uncut. Each group was randomly divided into four subgroups (n=10) according to the type of surface treatment: no treatment (control), 18% ethylenediaminetetraacetic acid (EDTA), All-Bond Universal adhesive in etch-and-rinse (E&R) mode, and All-Bond Universal adhesive in self-etch (SE) mode. Surefil One self-adhesive bulk-fill composite resin was bonded to enamel, and μSBS was measured after 24 hours. Data were analyzed by two-way ANOVA and Tukey’s HSD post-hoc test (alpha=0.05).

Results: Two-way ANOVA showed significant main effects of enamel preparation (P<0.001) and surface pretreatment (P<0.001), as well as their significant interaction effect (P=0.005) on μSBS. Cut enamel exhibited a higher mean μSBS (7.12±2.66MPa) than uncut enamel (5.88±2.70MPa; P=0.019). Universal adhesive application in E&R mode yielded the highest μSBS, followed by the SE mode; whereas, EDTA and no-treatment groups showed the lowest μSBS values.

Conclusion: Cut enamel samples exhibited a greater μSBS in comparison to uncut samples. The highest μSBS values were observed when both cut and uncut enamel surfaces received pretreatment with a universal adhesive applied in E&R mode.