Objective: To investigate the repair potential of CAD/CAM (computer-aided design/computer-aided manufacturing) ceramic and composite blocks using a silane-containing bonding agent with different repair protocols. Materials and Methods: Twenty-four discs were constructed from CAD/CAM ceramic and composite blocks. The discs were divided into six groups according to surface pre-treatment employed; GI: Diamond stone roughening (SR), GII: SR+ silanization (SR+S), GIII: Hydrofluoric acid etching (HF), GIV: HF+ silanization (HF+S), GV: Silica coating (SC), GVI: SC+ silanization (SC+S). Silane-containing bonding agent (Single Bond Universal adhesive, 3M ESPE) was applied to the pre-treated discs. Prior to light curing, irises were cut from tygon tubes (internal diameter = 0.8 mm and height = 0.5 mm) and mounted on each treated surface. Nanofilled resin composite (Filtek Z350 ^XT , 3M ESPE) was packed into the cylinder lumen and light-cured (n = 10). The specimens were subjected to microshear bond strength testing (μ-SBS) using universal testing machine. Failure modes of the fractured specimens were analyzed using field emission scanning electron microscope (FESEM). Eight representative discs were prepared to analyze the effect of surface treatments on surface topography using FESEM. μ-SBS results were analyzed using ANOVA and Tukeys post-hoc test. Results: Three-way ANOVA results showed that the materials, surface pre-treatment protocols, and silanization step had a statistically significant effect on the mean μ-SBS values at P ≤ 0.001. For ceramic discs, the groups were ranked; GIV (24.45 ± 7.35)> GVI ((20.18 ± 2.84)> GV (7.14 ± 14)= GII (6.72 ± 1.91)=GI (6.34 ± 2.21)=GIII (5.72 ± 2.18). For composite discs, groups were ranked; GI (24.98 ± 7.69)=GVI (24.84 ± 7.00) >GII (15.85 ± 5.29) =GV (14.65 ± 4.5)= GIV (14.24 ± 2.95)≥ GIII ((9.37 ± 2.78). Conclusion: The additional silanization step cannot be omitted if the repair protocol comprises of either hydrofluoric acid etching or silica coating for both CAD/CAM esthetic restorative materials. However, this step can be suppressed by using silane-containing adhesive with diamond stone roughened repair protocol.

Objectives: This study was carried out to examine the effect of application of four different disinfecting agents on the micro-shear bond strength (μ-SBS) of an etch-and-rinse and self-etch adhesive systems. Materials and Methods: One hundred flat dentin surfaces of human molars were produced by wet grinding the buccal surfaces. Specimens were randomly assigned to five groups according to the disinfectant used: Group I: Control (no disinfectant); Group II: 5.25% sodium hypochlorite based; Group III: 2% chlorhexidine based (Consepsis), Group IV: 0.1% benzalkoniumchloride based (Tubulicid red) and Group V: 3% doxycycline based (Biopure, MTAD). Specimens were bonded using either Adper Single Bond 2 or Clearfil S ³ Bond, which were employed according to the manufacturer's instructions. Resin composite microcylinders were bonded using Tygon^® tubes for μ-SBS testing. The modes of failure were noted after visual examination using a binocular stereomicroscope at Χ25 magnification. Failures were classified as adhesive, or mixed. μ-SBS results were analyzed using two-way ANOVA followed by Tukey's post-hoc test. Results: Dentin disinfectants tested significantly negated the bonding of Adper Single bond 2 and the groups were ranked; Group I > Group V = Group IV > Group II = Group III, meanwhile they enhanced significantly the μ-SBS values upon using Clearfil S ³ Bond and were ranked; Group II > Group III = Group IV = Group V > Group I. Most failures were adhesive with the Adper single bond adhesive system. Mixed modes of failure were evident with Clearfil S ³ bond. Conclusions: The disinfectants tested should not be used with Adper Single Bond 2 when applied before the etching step, However they could be used safely prior to bonding with Clearfil S ³ Bond.

Objective: This study was conducted to evaluate the microshear bond strength (μSBS) and ultramorphological characterization of glass ionomer (GI) cements; conventional GI cement (Fuji IX, CGI), resin modified GI (Fuji II LC, RMGI) and nano-ionomer (Ketac N100, NI) to enamel, dentin and cementum substrates. Materials and Methods: Forty-five lower molars were sectioned above the cemento-enamel junction. The occlusal surfaces were ground flat to obtain enamel and dentin substrates, meanwhile the cervical one-third of the root portion were utilized to evaluate the bonding efficacy to cementum substrate. Each substrate received microcylinders from the three tested materials; which were applied according to manufacturer instructions. μSBS was assessed using a universal testing machine. The data were analyzed using two-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) and Tukey’s post-hoc test. Modes of failure were examined using stereomicroscope at ×25 magnification. Interfacial analysis of the bonded specimens was carried out using environmental field emission scanning electron microscope. Results: Two-way ANOVA revealed that materials, substrates and their interaction had a statistically significant effect on the mean μSBS values at P values; <0.0001, 0.0108 and 0.0037 respectively. RMGI showed statistically significant the highest μSBS values to all examined tooth substrates. CGI and RMGI show substrate independent bonding efficiency, meanwhile; NI showed higher μSBS values to dentin and cementum compared to enamel. Conclusion: Despite technological development of GI materials, mainly the nano-particles use, better results have not been achieved for both investigations, when compared to RMGI, independent of tooth substrate.