Repair Bond Strength of Ion-Releasing Versus Conventional Resin Composites

With the growing clinical use of ion-releasing resin composites, their repairability has become an important consideration in minimally invasive restorative dentistry. Therefore, this study investigated the repair bond strength of a universal composite restorative to commercially available and experimental ion-releasing resin composite materials. Specimens (<i>n</i> = 8 per group) were produced from three commercially available ion-releasing composite materials (ACTIVA BioACTIVE-RESTORATIVE, Cention Forte, Beautifil II), one experimental ion-releasing resin composite containing 20 wt% bioactive glass fillers, and two conventional resin composites (3M Filtek Supreme XTE, Ceram.x Spectra ST), and aged by thermal cycling in artificial saliva (5000 cycles, 5-55 °C). Substrate surfaces were sandblasted (Al<sub>2</sub>O<sub>3</sub>, 50 µm), silanized (Monobond Plus), and repaired using adhesive (OptiBond FL) and universal resin composite (Ceram.x Spectra ST). After further thermal cycling, micro-tensile repair bond strength was assessed and analyzed using one-way ANOVA followed by Tukey's post hoc test. Failure modes were determined by stereomicroscopy (25× magnification) and statistically compared among the groups. Highest mean repair bond strength values were obtained for ACTIVA BioACTIVE-RESTORATIVE, Beautifil II, and 3M Filtek Supreme XTE (53.8, 46.2, and 43.0 MPa, respectively), which did not differ significantly among each other. ACTIVA BioACTIVE-RESTORATIVE attained significantly higher bond strength than the experimental composite, Ceram.x Spectra ST, and Cention Forte, and showed the highest incidence of cohesive failures (40%). No significant bond strength differences were detected among Beautifil II, 3M Filtek Supreme XTE, experimental composite, Ceram.x Spectra ST, and Cention Forte (36.2-46.2 MPa). In conclusion, ion-releasing resin composites can be repaired with conventional universal composite and show repair bond strength values at least as high as those of conventional composite materials.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
Materials
Published
2026-03-11
DOI
https://doi.org/10.3390/ma19061076
Primary Topic
Dental materials and restorations
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
0.00
Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

Repair Bond Strength of Ion-Releasing Versus Conventional Resin Composites

Matej Par, Tobias T. Tauböck, Andrea Gubler, Jenny Buhl
Materials
Dental materials and restorations
article

Repair Bond Strength of Ion-Releasing Versus Conventional Resin Composites

Matej Par, Tobias T. Tauböck, Andrea Gubler, Jenny Buhl
article en

Abstract

With the growing clinical use of ion-releasing resin composites, their repairability has become an important consideration in minimally invasive restorative dentistry. Therefore, this study investigated the repair bond strength of a universal composite restorative to commercially available and experimental ion-releasing resin composite materials. Specimens (<i>n</i> = 8 per group) were produced from three commercially available ion-releasing composite materials (ACTIVA BioACTIVE-RESTORATIVE, Cention Forte, Beautifil II), one experimental ion-releasing resin composite containing 20 wt% bioactive glass fillers, and two conventional resin composites (3M Filtek Supreme XTE, Ceram.x Spectra ST), and aged by thermal cycling in artificial saliva (5000 cycles, 5-55 °C). Substrate surfaces were sandblasted (Al<sub>2</sub>O<sub>3</sub>, 50 µm), silanized (Monobond Plus), and repaired using adhesive (OptiBond FL) and universal resin composite (Ceram.x Spectra ST). After further thermal cycling, micro-tensile repair bond strength was assessed and analyzed using one-way ANOVA followed by Tukey's post hoc test. Failure modes were determined by stereomicroscopy (25× magnification) and statistically compared among the groups. Highest mean repair bond strength values were obtained for ACTIVA BioACTIVE-RESTORATIVE, Beautifil II, and 3M Filtek Supreme XTE (53.8, 46.2, and 43.0 MPa, respectively), which did not differ significantly among each other. ACTIVA BioACTIVE-RESTORATIVE attained significantly higher bond strength than the experimental composite, Ceram.x Spectra ST, and Cention Forte, and showed the highest incidence of cohesive failures (40%). No significant bond strength differences were detected among Beautifil II, 3M Filtek Supreme XTE, experimental composite, Ceram.x Spectra ST, and Cention Forte (36.2-46.2 MPa). In conclusion, ion-releasing resin composites can be repaired with conventional universal composite and show repair bond strength values at least as high as those of conventional composite materials.

MaterialsVol. 19(6)
University of Zagreb (HR), University of Zurich (CH)
Openalex Percentile: Top 24%
Dental materials and restorations
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.