Comparison of Repair Bond Strength of Bulk-fill and Conventional Composites With Different Bonding Systems

One of the advantages of resin composites as a restorative material is their repairability. The purpose of the current study was to compare the repair bond strength of conventional and bulk-fill composites with different bonding systems.

In this in vitro study, sixty cylindrical specimens of materials were prepared according to the six groups under study (two types of conventional Gradia Direct and N-Ceram Bulk-Fill Tetric composites and three bonding systems: Single Bond Universal and Clearfil SE Bond and Single Bond 2). The samples were divided into 6 groups of 10 Single Bond/Gradia Direct composite (G1), Single Bond/Tetric N-Ceram bulk-fill composite (G2), Clearfil SE bond/Gradia Direct (G3), Clearfil SE Bond/Tetric N-Ceram bulk-fill composite (G4), single bond universal/Gradia Direct composite (G5), and Single Bond Universal/Tetric N-Ceram bulk-fill composite (G6). Repair bond strength in each group was measured using the Universal Testing Machine (Hounsfield). All data were analyzed by SPSS 21 using ANOVA, Student’s t-test, and chi-square statistical tests (P<0.05).

The highest and lowest bond strength (15.81±2.44 and 14.02±1.57, respectively) belonged to the Clearfil SE Bond-Tetric N-Ceram and Single Bond (Etch & Rinse)-Gradia Direct groups, respectively. The ANOVA test results demonstrated no significant difference in the bonding strengths of the study groups (P=0.537).

Bulk-fill composite Tetric N-Ceram, apart from the bonding system, had higher repair bond strength compared to the conventional Gradia Direct composite. It seems that self-etch bonding systems (Clearfil SE Bond and Single Bond Universal) have had more bond strength than etch and rinse bonding (Single Bond 2 bonds).