Evaluation of microtensile bond strength of composite resin repair using different surface treatments


  • Rodrigo Richard da Silveira Universidade Federal de Minas Gerais
  • Maria Elisa de Souza e Silva Universidade Federal de Minas Gerais
  • Eduardo Lemos de Souza Universidade Federal de Minas Gerais
  • José Flávio Batista Gabrich Giovannini Centro Universitário Newton Paiva
  • Paulo Afonso Silveira Francisconi Universidade de São Paulo




Composite resins, Dentin-bonding agents, Corrective maintenance, Tooth abrasion, Tensile strength


Aim: The purpose of this study was to simulate the repair of composite resin restorations by evaluating the composite-to-composite microtensile bond strength test, after applying different combinations of surface treatments.

Materials and Methods: The present study analyzed 180 samples of Tetric Ceram® (Ivoclar/Vivadent) composite resin, distributed in 9 groups (n=20/grupo). At the time of repair, each group received specific surface treatment: 37% phosphoric acid (Ivoclar/Vivadent), 10% hydrofluoric acid (Dentsply), or microjet spraying with 50µm of aluminum oxide particles (Micro Jato VH®). Next, the Heliobond® (Ivoclar/Vivadent) adhesive system was applied, associated or not with the Monobond-S® (Ivoclar/Vivadent) silanizing agent. Specimens were also manufactured but did not undergo any form of repair (control group). These specimens were stored in deionized water for 18 months. After this time, each sample was submitted to microtensile bond strength testing using a universal testing machine (EMIC DL500BF) at a speed of 0.5 mm/minute. The data acquired in MPa was then submitted to a normality evaluation of the microtensile variable by applying the Kolmogorov-Smirnov test. Since the variable did not present normal distribution (p<0.001), the Kruskal-Wallis and Mann-Whitney tests were also performed. The p value was considered significant when less than 0.05, at which time the Bonferroni correction was applied (p<0.00138).

Results: The control group exhibited significantly higher tensile strength values. Group 2 exhibited significantly higher bond strength than groups 1, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, and 8. Groups 3 and 4 showed the lowest bond strength.

Conclusions: The cohesive strength value of the composite resin was more effective than all the other tested repair techniques. The use of H PO and subsequent applications of the adhesive system proved to be the ideal repair treatment for composite resin restorations


Download data is not yet available.


Loomans BA, Vivan Cardoso M, Roeters FJ, Opdam NJ, De Munck J, Huysmans MC, et al. Is there one optimal repair technique for all composites? Dent Mater. 2011; 27:701-9.

Staxrud F, Dahl JE. Role of bonding agents in the repair of composite resin restorations. Eur J Oral Sci. 2011; 119:316-22.

Vivas J, Yaman P, Taylor G. Effect of different surface treatments on the shear and flexural re- bond strength of a micro-hybrid composite. J Contemp Dent Pract. 2009; 10:E001-8.

Cavalcanti AN, De Lima AF, Peris AR, Mitsui FH, Marchi GM. Effect of surface treatments and bonding agents on the bond strength of repaired composites. J Esthet Restor Dent. 2007; 19:90-8.

Rodrigues SA Jr, Ferracane JL, Della Bona A. Influence of surface treatments on the bond strength of repaired resin composite restorative materials. Dent Mater. 2009; 25:442-51.

Hunter AR, Treasure ET, Hunter AJ. Increases in cavity volume associated with the removal of class 2 amalgam and composite restorations. Oper Dent. 1995; 20:2-6.

Papacchini F, Dall’Oca S, Chieffi N, Goracci C, Sadek FT, Suh Bl, et al. Composite-to-composite microtensile bond strength in the repair of a microfilled hybrid resin: effect of surface treatment and oxygen inhibition. J Adhes Dent. 2007; 9:25-31.

Ozcan M, Barbosa SH, Melo RM, Galhano GA, Bottino MA. Effect of surface conditioning methods on the microtensile bond strength of resin composite to composite after aging conditions. Dent Mater. 2007; 23:1276-82.

Rinastiti M, Ozcan M, Siswomihardjo W, Busscher HJ, van der Mei HC. Effect of biofilm on the repair bond strengths of composites. J Dent Res. 2010; 89:1476-81.

Loomans BA, Cardoso MV, Opdam NJ, Roeters FJ, De Munck J, Huysmans MC, et al. Surface roughness of etched composite resin in light of composite repair. J Dent. 2011; 39:499-505.

Maneenut C, Sakoolnamarka R, Tyas MJ. The repair potential of resin composite materials. Dent Mater. 2011; 27:e20-7.

Costa TR, Ferreira SQ, Klein-Júnior CA, Loguercio AD, Reis A. Durability of surface treatments and intermediate agents used for repair of a polished composite. Oper Dent. 2010; 35:231-7.

Rinastiti M, Ozcan M, Siswomihardjo W, Busscher HJ. Immediate repair bond strengths of microhybrid, nanohybrid and nanofilled composites after different surface treatments. J Dent. 2010; 38:29-38.

Fawzy AS, El-Askary FS, Amer MA. Strength of repaired water-aged anterior restorative micro- fine hybrid resin composite. J Dent. 2008; 36:969- 76.

American Dental Association. Council on dental materials and devices. Specification n. 27 for direct filling resins. J Amer Dent Ass. 1977; 94:1191-5.

Rathke A, Tymina Y, Haller B. Effect of different surface treatments on the composite-composite repair bond strength. Clin Oral Investig. 2009; 13:317-23.

Soderholm K. Flexure strength of repaired dental composites. Scan J Den Res. 1986; 94:364-9.

Swith Junior EJ, Le Valley BD, Boyer DB. Evaluation of new methods for composite repair. Dent Mater. 1992; 8:362-5.

Swith Junior EJ. Treatment of composite surfaces for indirect bonding. Dent Mater. 1992; 8:193-6.

Anagnostopoulos T, Eliades G, Palaghias G. Composition reactivity and surface interactions of three dental silane primers. Dent Mater 1993; 9:182-90.



How to Cite

Silveira, R. R. da, Silva, M. E. de S. e, Souza, E. L. de, Giovannini, J. F. B. G., & Francisconi, P. A. S. (2016). Evaluation of microtensile bond strength of composite resin repair using different surface treatments. Arquivos Em Odontologia, 48(4). https://doi.org/10.7308/aodontol/2012.48.4.05




Most read articles by the same author(s)