IADR 95th

28/75

-28-G-Bond, G-ænialUniversal Flo, Solare2617 How to Increase Bond Strength of Composites and Acrylic Resins?Poster Presentation3:45 PM–5:00 PM Mar 24, 2017CC, First FloorAuthors:Authors:JúliaOliveira (Presenter)Federal University of Santa CatarinaKarla Teixeira, Federal University of Santa CatarinaTamara Borba, Federal University of Santa CatarinaJaquelinePazinato, Federal University of Santa CatarinaAnaluciaPhilippi, Federal University of Santa CatarinaLuis Mezzomo, Federal University of Santa CatarinaThais Gonçalves, Federal University of Santa CatarinaThais Gonçalves, Federal University of Santa CatarinaAbstract: Objectives: This study was carried out to compare the effects of different surface treatments and resin consistency on the shear bond strength of the adhesive interface between composite resin (CR) and autopolymerizedacrylic resin (AR).Methods: Sixty four cubes of AR (dimensions 10x10x7 mm) were included into plastic matrixes. Surface roughness were standardized with digital rugosimeter. After ultrasonic bath, half of the sample received sandblast treatment. After that, the following treatments were randomly applied: monomer methyl methacrylate(MMA) (180 s) (control), adhesive primer (G-Bond, GC applied: monomer methyl methacrylate(MMA) (180 s) (control), adhesive primer (G-Bond, GC Europe), MMA (180 s) followed by adhesive primer (G-Bond, GC Europe), adhesive composite (Schotbond, 3M Espe), MMA (180 s) followed by adhesive composite (Schotbond, 3M Espe). Each block received two cylinder (2 mm diameter) of each of the following CR: conventional (SolareGC America, GC America or FiltekZ350, 3M Espe) or low consistency (Universal GaenialFlow, GC America or FiltekZ350 flow, 3M Espe). Specimens were tested in Universal Testing Machine (Instron4444, USA) (0.5 mm/min) with increasing voltage up to breakage. Data was analyzed d by factorial ANOVA followed by Tukey(α = 0.05).Results: Higher shear bond strengths were developed after surface treatment with MMA Results: Higher shear bond strengths were developed after surface treatment with MMA associated to both adhesive systems (p <0.001) (Table 1). Significant interaction was observed between resin type and treatment (p <0.001). Shear bond strength of low consistency CR were higher than conventional CR (p<0.001). Similarly, sandblast treatment increased bond strength (p<0.001). Failure was primarily adhesive in all groups.Conclusions: To increase the shear bond strength of composite and acrylic resins interface is necessary to combine sandblast application previously to the consequent application of MMA for 180 s and light-cured adhesive primer.Table(s):Surface TreatmentFlow CRConvencional CRMMA - 180 s (GC composites)12,97 ± 3,51 A4,68 ± 2,46 AAdhesive primer (G-Bond, GC Europe)17,0 ± 15,26 B6,96 ± 3,89 ACMMA - 180 s + adhesive primer (G-Bond, GC)17,87 ± 3,23 B14,12 ± 4,35 BMMA - 180 s (Schotbond, 3M)6,48 ± 4,33 C3,43 ± 2,42 AAdhesive primer (Schotbond, 3M)8,59 ± 3,63 C3,57 ± 2,64 A MMA - 180 s + adhesive system (Schotbond, 3M)16,07 ± 2,98 AB9,11 ± 4,81 CStudent PresenterDisclosure Statement:The submitter must disclose the names of the organizations with which any author have a relationship, the nature of the relationship, and the clinical or research area involved. The following is submitted: NONEI have read the IADR policy on licensing.Signed by Julia OliveiraMMA - 180 s + adhesive system (Schotbond, 3M)16,07 ± 2,98 AB9,11 ± 4,81 CReprinted with permission from the Journal of Dental Research, J Dent Res 96 (Spec Iss A):-28-abstract number 2617, https://iadr2017.zerista.com/event/member/336341, 2017