Composite–composite repair bond strength: effect of different adhesion primers

Objectives. Recently, new products have been introduced to repair composite restorations that may be used as ‘one-step’ primers or monomers and silane compounds which are used separately as ‘multi-step’ primers. The aim of this study was to compare the shear bond strength of the new composite resin to aged composite, by using different adhesion primers. Methods. The substrates were particulate filler composite (Z250, 3M-ESPE), which was aged by boiling for 8 h and storing at 37 °C in water for 3 weeks. The aged substrate surfaces were wet-ground flat with 320-grit silicon carbide paper and subjected randomly (n=8) to either one-step adhesion primer: Compoconnect (CC) (Heraus Kulzer), or multi-step: Clearfil Repair (CF) (Kuraray) or an intermediate resin: Scothchbond Multi-purpose adhesive resin (3M-ESPE) according to the manufacturersʹ recommendations. Specimens with no surface treatment were used as control (C). New composite resin (Z250) was added to the substrate using 2 mm layer increments and light cured. The specimens were either water stored for 48 h or water stored for 24 h and then thermocycled for 6000 cycles. The shear bond strengths were measured with a crosshead speed of 1.0 mm/min using a universal testing machine. Data were analysed by two-way ANOVA and Tukeyʹs post-hoc tests (p=0.05). Results. All surface treatment methods showed significant difference compared to control (p<0.05). CF showed higher bond strength than CC and MP (p<0.05). Storage condition did not show a significant difference (p>0.05) in bond strength values. Conclusion. It was concluded that multi-step adhesion primer yielded higher bond strength compared to one-step primer or intermediate resin.