LAUSR

OBJECTIVE To evaluate the composite-to-composite repair interfacial fracture toughness (iFT) as a function of adhesive and composite repair material. METHODS AND MATERIALS Beam-shaped composite specimens (21×4×3±0.2 mm) were prepared for each substrate material (Filtek Supreme Ultra [FSU] or Clearfil Majesty ES-2 [CME]) and artificially aged for 50,000 thermocycles (5-55°C, 20-second dwell time). Aged specimens were sectioned in half, and the resulting hemispecimens were randomly assigned to one of the different repair methods (n=10) based on the following variables: type of substrate composite (FSU or CME), acid etch (yes or no), adhesive type (Scotchbond Universal or Clearfil SE Bond 2), and type of repair composite (FSU or CME). The repair surface was prepared with a course diamond bur (Midwest #471271). When used, 37% phosphoric acid was applied for 20 seconds, rinsed, and dried. All adhesives and composites were applied according to manufacturers' instructions. After postrepair storage (100% humidity, 37°C, 24 hours), iFT was measured and expressed as MPa. Data were analyzed for statistical significance using a three-way analysis of variance and Tukey post hoc tests (α=0.05). RESULTS iFT values ranged from 0.64 ± 0.19 MPa to 1.28 ± 013 MPa. Significantly higher iFT values were achieved when FSU was used as the repair composite resin regardless of the substrate composite resin (p<0.001). Clearfil SE Bond 2 adhesive was associated with significantly higher iFT values for FSU substrate (p<0.001). The etching procedure had no significant effect on the iFT values of the repair procedures (p>0.05). CONCLUSIONS Composite repair strength is adhesive and composite dependent. Repair strength appears to be higher when FSU is the repair composite regardless of the adhesive used.