Skip to content

Effect of Different Surface Treatment Protocols on Shear Bond Strength of Bulk-fill Resin Composite: an SEM Evaluation

Sep 2026 · Oral Health & Preventive Dentistry · Vol 24, pp. 1003 - 1010 · 0 citations · 56 references
Medicine

Abstract

Purpose To evaluate the repair bond strength of aged bulk-fill resin composites using various surface treatment protocols and analyze the composite–composite interface via scanning electron microscopy (SEM). Materials and Methods One-hundred fifty disk-shaped specimens (4 mm height × 5 mm diameter) were prepared from three bulk-fill composites. After thermocycling (10,000 cycles, 5°C–55°C), specimens were assigned to five groups: (1) control (no treatment); (2) Universal adhesive (UA); (3) 37% phosphoric acid + UA; (4) silane + UA; and (5) CoJet + Silane + UA. Filtek Bulk-Fill Flowable was applied as the repair composite. After 24-h storage, shear bond strength (SBS) was measured, and one specimen per group was examined under SEM. Results Two-way ANOVA showed statistically significant effects of both surface treatment and composite type on SBS (p < 0.05). CoJet + silane + UA produced the highest SBS values for all composites, whereas the untreated control produced the lowest values. No statistically significant difference was observed between UA and phosphoric acid + UA (p > 0.05), while silane + UA resulted in statistically significantly higher SBS values than both protocols. Material-dependent differences were observed in some treatment groups; however, no statistically significant differences among the three composites were detected following phosphoric acid + UA or CoJet + silane + UA treatment. Conclusion Surface treatment statistically significantly improved the repair bond strength of aged bulk-fill composites. The combination of CoJet, silane, and universal adhesive provided the most effective bond enhancement.

View source

We use cookies to run the site and, with your consent, for analytics and to show ads. See our Cookie Policy.