Related Experiment Video
Updated: Sep 24, 2025
Impact of Fabrication Techniques and Polishing Procedures on Surface Roughness of Denture Base Resins
Published on: January 17, 2025
Repairability of aged dimethacrylate-free ORMOCER-based dental composite resins with different surface roughening
Maryam Pirmoradian1, Bahaa Abdulrazzaq Jerri Al-Bakhakh2, Marjan Behroozibakhsh3
1Graduate student, PhD candidate, Department of Dental Biomaterials, School of Dentistry, Tehran University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran.
Statement Of Problem:
The repair of damaged composite resin restorations has been recommended as a conservative treatment option. However, a reliable protocol for repairing ORMOCER-based restorations is lacking.
Purpose:
The purpose of this in vitro study was to investigate the effect of different surface roughening methods, repair composite resins, and intermediate materials on the repair bond strength of a dimethacrylate-free ORMOCER-based composite resin.
Material And Methods:
Cylindrical composite resin specimens (Admira Fusion) were roughened by using hydrofluoric acid (HF) or a diamond rotary instrument. In both groups, 4 types of intermediate materials were used (Monobond-S, Clearfil SE bond [second bottle], Clearfil Universal bond, GC Composite Primer), and then half of the specimens were repaired with a similar composite resin, and the other half with dimethacrylate composite resin (Clearfil-APX). The specimens (n=20) were then subjected to repair bond strength and failure mode evaluation. The data were analyzed by using the Weibull test, 3-way and 1-way ANOVA, and the Tukey honestly significant difference (HSD) test (α=.05).
Results:
All variables, including the surface roughening method, intermediate material, and repair composite resin, had a significant effect on repair bond strength (P<.001). The lowest repair bond strength values were obtained in the group roughened with HF, prepared with Monobond-S, and repaired with Admira Fusion, and the highest values were obtained in the group roughened with a rotary instrument, prepared with GC Composite Primer, and repaired with Clearfil APX (P<.05). All experimental groups had a lower bond strength than the cohesive and control groups (P<.05). In all experimental groups, the predominant failure modes were adhesive and mixed.
Conclusions:
The use of a diamond rotary instrument was a more reliable method of creating roughness, and different intermediate materials based on the clinical situation can be used to repair dimethacrylate-free ORMOCER-based composite resin with similar or different composite resins. However, in general, the highest repair bond strengths were achieved with Clearfil APX-repaired specimens.
