Effect of Different Surface Treatments and Roughness on the Repair Bond Strength of Aged Nanohybrid Composite

Different surface treatments have been tested in composite repair studies. However, there is still no consensus on the most effective repair protocol. The aim of this study is to measure the roughness values of eight different surface treatments for the repair procedure, to examine the effect of each surface treatment and three different composites on the repair bond strength with and without silane, and to evaluate whether there is a correlation between bond strength and roughness. The blocks were prepared with Filtek Z550 (3M ESPE) for the roughness measurements and divided into eight groups according to surface treatments. The roughness values of the surface treatments were measured by a 3D scanning contact profilometer (Nanomap LS). For the shear test, further samples were prepared, aged, and divided into three subgroups for the repair procedure with Filtek Z550 (3M ESPE), Vertise Flow (Kerr, USA), and G-aenial Flo (GC, Japan) after the surface treatments. Then, the shear test was performed. The Kruskal-Wallis and Spearman's Correlation tests were used for statistical evaluation of the data. Significant differences were found between surface treatments and composite resins in terms of bond strength (p < 0.05). There is no correlation between the roughness and bond strength values. In bond strength, surface topography is more important than the numerical value of roughness. In the repair of composite restorations, methods that are already in clinical practice and more practical can be used instead of methods that require additional costs and devices.