Effect of different surface treatments on the repair bond strength between aged and new alkasite based restorative material

Tina Puthen Purayil; Kishore Ginjupalli; Kalyana Pentapati; Aastha Dureja; Rashmi Nayak

doi:10.12688/f1000research.148326.2

Home Browse Effect of different surface treatments on the repair bond strength...

ALL Metrics

Views

Downloads

Get PDF

Get XML

Export

▬

✚

Research Article

Revised

Effect of different surface treatments on the repair bond strength between aged and new alkasite based restorative material

[version 2; peer review: 2 approved]

Previously titled: Effect of different surface treatments on repair bond strength of alkasite based restorative material

Tina Puthen Purayil¹, Kishore Ginjupalli², Kalyana Pentapati³, Aastha Dureja⁴, Rashmi Nayak⁵

Tina Puthen Purayil¹, Kishore Ginjupalli², [...] Kalyana Pentapati³, Aastha Dureja⁴, Rashmi Nayak⁵

PUBLISHED 06 Jun 2024

Author details Author details

¹ Conservative Dentistry and Endodontics, Manipal College of Dental Sciences, Manipal, Manipal Academy of Higher Education, Manipal, Karnataka, 576104, India
² Dental Materials, Manipal College of Dental Sciences, Manipal, Manipal Academy of Higher Education, Manipal, Karnataka, 576104, India
³ Public Health Dentistry, Manipal College of Dental Sciences, Manipal, Manipal Academy of Higher Education, Manipal, Karnataka, 576104, India
⁴ Conservative Dentistry and Endodontics, D.Y. Patil University School of Dentistry, Nerul, Navi Mumbai, Maharashtra, 400706, India
⁵ Pedodontics and Preventive Dentistry, Manipal College of Dental Sciences, Manipal, Manipal Academy of Higher Education, Manipal, Karnataka, 576104, India

Tina Puthen Purayil
Roles: Conceptualization, Data Curation, Investigation, Methodology, Resources, Writing – Original Draft Preparation, Writing – Review & Editing

Kishore Ginjupalli
Roles: Conceptualization, Investigation, Methodology, Supervision, Validation, Writing – Original Draft Preparation, Writing – Review & Editing

Kalyana Pentapati
Roles: Conceptualization, Formal Analysis, Methodology, Validation, Writing – Review & Editing

Aastha Dureja
Roles: Conceptualization, Resources, Writing – Original Draft Preparation, Writing – Review & Editing

Rashmi Nayak
Roles: Conceptualization, Resources, Writing – Original Draft Preparation, Writing – Review & Editing

OPEN PEER REVIEW

REVIEWER STATUS

This article is included in the Manipal Academy of Higher Education gateway.

Abstract

Background

This study investigates various surface treatment methods to assess shear bond strength between set Cention N (alkasite-based restorative material) and new alkasite based restorative material. Assessing different surface treatments provide insights in optimizing repair procedure that enables durability of the restoration, thus potentially benefitting clinical outcomes.

Methods

A total of 48 alkasite based restorative material blocks, measuring 4 mm in depth and 4 mm in diameter, were prepared. The samples were randomly divided into 8 groups (n = 6) according to the surface treatment done. Group I: Surface preparation by bur; Group II: Surface treatment by laser; Group III: Application of 2-step etch and rinse adhesive (Adper Single Bond 2 adhesive),Group IV: Application of single step self-etch adhesive (Scotchbond Universal adhesive); Group V: Bur preparation followed by application of 2-step etch and rinse adhesive; Group VI: Bur preparation followed by application of single step self-etch adhesive; Group VII: Laser preparation followed by application of 2-step etch and rinse adhesive; and Group VIII: Laser preparation followed by application of single step self-etch adhesive. Post-surface preparation, all the specimens were restored with newly mixed alkasite material. Repair bond strength measurements were assessed with universal testing machine. Shapiro-Wilk and Levene's tests were used to check normality and Homogeneity of variance. ANOVA with post-hoc Games-Howell test and two-way ANOVA with post-hoc Bonferroni test was performed to evaluate the influence of surface preparation on the repair bond strength.

Results

Using a 2-step etch and rinse adhesive resulted in a higher repair bond strength (26.05±2.12) compared to other surface treatments. In contrast, roughening of the surface with burs led to lowest repair bond strength (17.06±3.29) (P=0.02).

Conclusion

Application of 2-step etch and rinse adhesive to the existing alkasite based restorative material provides superior bonding with the newly added alkasite based restorative material.

Keywords

Alkasite, Bond strength, Repair, Surface treatment

Corresponding author: Kishore Ginjupalli

Competing interests: No competing interests were disclosed.

Grant information: The author(s) declared that no grants were involved in supporting this work.

Copyright: © 2024 Purayil TP et al. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

How to cite: Purayil TP, Ginjupalli K, Pentapati K et al. Effect of different surface treatments on the repair bond strength between aged and new alkasite based restorative material [version 2; peer review: 2 approved]. F1000Research 2024, 13:319 (https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.148326.2) First published: 23 Apr 2024, 13:319 (https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.148326.1) Latest published: 06 Jun 2024, 13:319 (https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.148326.2)

Revised Amendments from Version 1

The following edits have been done in this revised manuscript.
Title: Updated to enhance clarity and maintain integrity.
Abstract: Minor edits to improve clarity.
Terminology: Changed "fresh restoration" to "new restoration" throughout the manuscript.
Statistical Analysis: Added more details in the Results section for better understanding.
Materials Information: Added manufacturer details and composition of the materials in Table 2.
Tables: Renumbered accordingly.
References: Added a new reference for the procedure of ageing of the restorations.
Typographical Error: Corrected the error from "40 sec" to "20 sec".

See the authors' detailed response to the review by Nazmiye Donmez
See the authors' detailed response to the review by Emad Farhan Alkhalidi

Introduction

In the past, complete replacement of restorations was the standard approach for eliminating small defects in restorations. However, complete removal of the restoration followed by preparation of the tooth to receive a new restoration weakens the tooth structure, resulting in unnecessary removal of tooth structure and, in some cases, irreversible injury to the dental pulp. Even in the absence of secondary caries or discoloration at the tooth-restoration interface, repair is suggested instead of complete replacement of the restoration, primarily because of its conservative approach. Thus, repair of the restoration is an effective approach to enhance the longevity of the restorations.¹^–⁴ In addition, durability of the repaired restorations is equivalent to that of replacement of the restorations.⁵ However, the success or failure of such a process is dependent on the bond strength between the old and the new restorative materials at their interface, which is affected by a myriad of parameters, including surface treatment of the old restoration before placement of new restorative material.

Various methods that alter the physical and chemical features of the surfaces of old restorative materials have been employed to improve the bond strength between the existing and new restorative materials. These include surface preparation using a bur, laser, air abrasion with aluminum oxide particles, pre-treatment of the surface with silane, and the use of resin-based adhesive systems along with different primers.⁶^–⁸

Alkasite is a tooth-colored restorative material (Cention^® N, Ivoclar Vivadent Liechtenstein), widely used for deciduous and permanent restorations of Class I, II, and V carious lesions.⁹ Manufacturers and recent research indicate that it exhibits flexural strength comparable to that of silver amalgam, along with superior handling characteristics.⁹^,¹⁰

As this material is recently introduced, data on the clinical performance and survival or clinical service life of the material along with the type of failure of the material in a variety of clinical conditions are not widely available. However, in the event of failure of such restorations, in the form of dislodgement or fracture of the material, it is important to establish a suitable repair method.

Most surface treatment methods aim to increase surface area of the bonding between the two materials to promote the interaction between the aged and new restorative materials thus improving the bond strength. However, literature on the effect of surface treatment on the bond strength between the old and new alkasite based restorative materials is not available. Hence, the main aim of this study was to evaluate the effect of various surface treatments on the repair bond strength between old and new alkasite based restorative materials.

Methods

A total of 48 acrylic blocks (4 cm height × 2 cm width) were prepared using a self-cure acrylic resin (DPI-RR Cold Cure, DPI, Mumbai, India). One-day after the polymerization of the acrylic blocks, a cylindrical hole of 4 mm × 4 mm was drilled on one side of the acrylic block.

Alkasite based material powder was weighed using an electronic balance and added to a pre-weighed quantity of liquid at a ratio of 4.6:1, as recommended by the manufacturer. Both the powder and liquid were mixed with a plastic spatula for 30 s to obtain a thick putty-like consistency suitable for packing. The material was packed into the holes in the acrylic block, and curing was performed for 20 s using a Light Emitting Diode (LED) light curing unit at 850 mW/cm² (3M ESPE Elipar, St Paul, USA). The specimens were then stored in distilled water at 37°C for one month for ageing.¹¹

Surface preparation

After the aging process, the acrylic blocks containing alkasite based material were randomly divided into eight groups (n=6) and subjected to either of the following surface treatments: Table 1 describes the various methods used for surface preparation across the different groups.

Table 1. Description of the various surface preparation methods used in different groups.

Group	Group code	Type of surface preparation	Type of adhesive used
I	Bur	Bur	-
II	Laser	Laser Irradiation	-
III	ASB2	-	2-step etch and rinse adhesive
IV	SBUA	-	Single step self-etch adhesive
V	Bur+ASB2	Bur	2-step etch and rinse adhesive
VI	Bur+SBUA	Bur	Single step self-etch adhesive
VII	Laser+ASB2	Laser Irradiation	2-step etch and rinse adhesive
VIII	Laser+SBUA	Laser Irradiation	Single step self-etch adhesive

Group I (Bur): The surface of alkasite based material was roughened using a TR 11 diamond bur (Mani, Tochigi, Japan) with a high-speed handpiece (NSK M25, Nakanishi Inc, Kanuma City, Japan) under water spray. Bur was replaced after surface preparation of five specimens.

Group II (Laser): The alkasite based material surface was irradiated by an Er;Cr:YSGG laser (Waterlase, Biolase Technology, Sanclemente, CA, USA) at 2780 nm wavelength at 3 W output power and 20 Hz frequency of 60μsec duration. A laser tip was used with a gentle sweeping motion at a working length of 1 mm with a spot size of 800μm (MZ-8 Ziptip, Biolase) under a water spray.

Group III (ASB2): The surface of alkasite based material was treated with 2 step etch and rinse adhesive (Adper Single Bond 2, 3M ESPE St Paul MN, USA) (Table 2) where the specimen was first etched with 37% phosphoric acid (Ivoclar Vivadent, USA) for 15 s, followed by rinsing for 10 s with water and air drying. Subsequently, two coats of adhesive were applied to the etched surfaces of alkasite based material with gentle agitation, followed by air blowing of the excess adhesive to leave a thin film. This was followed by light-curing of the adhesive for 10 s using an LED light-curing unit.

Table 2. Description of the various materials and composition used in the study.

Materials	Composition	Manufacturer
Cention N	Powder: Calcium-fluoro-silicateglass, Barium-Alumino-silicate glass, Ytterbium trifluoride, Isofiller (Copolymer), A copper salt & thiocarbamide-self cure Initiator or Ivocerin and acyl phosphine oxide-photoinitiator, Pigment Liquid: Urethanedimethacrylate, Tetramethyl-xylylendiurethane dimethacrylate, Tricyclodecan-dimethanol dimethacrylate, Polyethylene glycol 400 dimethacrylate, Initiator (Hydroperoxide), Stabilizer	Ivoclar Vivadent Liechtenstein
Adper Single Bond 2	Bisphenol-A glycidyl methacrylate,2-hy-droxyethyl methacrylate, dimethacrylates, polyalkenoic acid copolymer, 10 vol% of 5-nm silica nanofiller, initiators, water, ethanol	3M ESPE St Paul MN, USA
Scotchbond Universal Adhesive	Methacryloyloxydecyl dihydrogen phosphate monomer, dimethacrylate resins, Hydroxyethyl methacrylate, methacrylate functionalized polyalkenoic acid, filler, ethanol	3M ESPE, St Paul, MN, USA

Group IV (SBUA): The surface of alkasite based material was treated with a single step self etch adhesive (Scotchbond Universal Adhesive, 3M ESPE, St Paul, MN, USA) (Table 2) using a microbrush for 20s, thinned by mild air pressure for 5 s, followed by light-curing of the adhesive for 10 s using an LED light-curing unit.

Group V (Bur+ASB2): The alkasite based material surface was roughened as described for Group I, followed by application of 2-step etch and rinse adhesive as described for Group III.

Group VI (Bur+SBUA): The alkasite based material surface was roughened as described for Group I, followed by application of a single step self-etch adhesive as described for Group IV.

Group VII (Laser+ASB2): The alkasite based material surface was laser-irradiated as described for Group II, followed by application of 2-step etch and rinse adhesive as described for Group III.

Group VIII (Laser+SBUA): The alkasite based material surface was laser-irradiated as described for Group II, followed by application of a single step self-etch adhesive as described for Group IV.

Specimen preparation

After the completion of the surface preparation of alkasite based material as described above, a newly mixed alkasite based material as per the manufacturer’s instructions was build up to a height of 4 mm. Subsequently, the material was cured using LED light curing for 20 s. After the curing, samples were stored in distilled water for 24 h.

Measurement of repair bond strength

The repair bond strength was evaluated in shear mode. The samples were fastened to the lower half of a universal testing machine (Model 3366; Instron Corp., USA). A compressive load was applied at a loading rate of 0.5 mm/min at the interface between the old and new alkasite based materials until debonding. The maximum load observed during the test, divided by the area of the specimen, was reported as the repair bond strength in MPa (n=6).

Statistical analysis

Data were analyzed using SPSS version 20 (IBM Corp. Released 2011. IBM SPSS Statistics for Windows, Version 20.0. Armonk, NY: IBM Corp.). Statistical significance was set at P<0.05. Normality was tested using the Shapiro-Wilk test. Based on the normality, and test of homogeneity of the variances (Levene statistic) mean were compared using ANOVA with post-hoc Games-Howell test. Subsequently, a two-way ANOVA with post-hoc Bonferroni test for inter-group comparisons was performed to evaluate the role of surface preparation and adhesive application on the repair bond strength. The data for this study are available in Figshare.¹²

Results

There was a significant difference in the mean repair bond strength between the eight groups (P=0.02). Post-hoc tests showed that Group III (ASB2) (26.05±2.12) and Group VII (Laser+ASB2) (25.84±2.35) had significantly higher mean repair bond strengths than Group I (Bur). No other significant differences were observed between groups (Table 3). Two-way ANOVA was used to evaluate the role of surface preparation and adhesive application on repair bond strength. Levene’s test showed no significant differences in variance across groups (P=0.25). There was no significant interaction between the type of adhesive and surface preparation (P=0.121). The main effects showed that the type of adhesives showed a significant difference on the repair bond strength (P=0.01), whereas no significant difference was observed with respect to the surface preparation. The estimated marginal means for Group III (ASB2) were significantly higher than compared to those without adhesives (P=0.003), whereas no other significant differences were observed with respect to adhesives on the repair bond strength.

Table 3. Comparison of repair bond strength values among the study groups.

Group	Mean and Standard Deviation (MPa)	P-value	Post-hoc test
I. Bur	17.06±3.29	0.02; Sig	III, VII>I
II. Laser	21.52±4.63
III. ASB2	26.05±2.12
IV. SBUA	23.83±5.09
V. Bur+ASB2	24.29±6.84
VI. Bur +SBUA	24.84±4.61
VII. Laser+ASB2	25.84±2.35
VIII. Laser+SBUA	20.13±5.91

Discussion

Failure of dental restorations or the need for retreatment is not uncommon in routine dental practice. In such cases, re-restoration is a standard procedure aimed at repairing and restoring the tooth to its natural form and function. The surface of the existing restoration is prepared using a variety of methods to enhance its bonding with newly placed restoration material, which can influence the bond strength between the two materials, impacting the longevity of the repair.¹³^,¹⁴

Alkasite restorative material is a new category of filling materials based on urethane dimethacrylate (UDMA) resin. It is supplied as a self-curing powder/liquid formulation, along with optional light curing. Its ability to effectively polymerize to complete depth of the restoration leads to a high polymer network density in the material. This could be attributed to the sole use of the cross-linking methacrylate monomer, along with a stable, efficient self-cure initiator.⁹ The existing literature is scarce in terms of the methods to be followed to achieve superior bonding between the existing restorative material and new material in case of repair. Thus, the present study aimed to investigate the effect of different surface treatments on the repair bond strength between existing and new alkasite based restorative materials.

The results of the present study indicate that the use of adhesive results in a superior repair bond strength. This was in accordance with a study conducted on composites¹⁵ where the use of adhesive proved to be a conservative and effective treatment approach for the repair of restorative materials. Among the two adhesive systems, the highest repair bond strength was observed with the application of 2-step etch and rinse adhesive. Among the various surface treatments evaluated in the present study, surface preparation using burs resulted in the lowest repair bond strength.

2-step etch and rinse adhesive is a fifth generation bonding agent that employs a separate etching step prior to the application of adhesive. A separate etching process followed by rinsing would have helped in cleaning the surface of the restoration and increased its surface roughness, leading to an increase in the surface area of the bonding, better wettability of the adhesives, and leading to superior repair bond strength. A similar improvement in bond strength has been reported in previous investigations.¹⁶^,¹⁷

Single step self-etch adhesive, a seventh generation dentin bonding agent, on the other hand, is a hydrophilic multipurpose and all-in-one adhesive that does not require an additional etching step. Despite its ease of use, it showed less favorable repair bond strength than 2-step etch and rinse adhesive. The absence of a separate etching step, which is generally followed by washing would not result in the exposure of a clean surface with an enhanced surface area needed for superior bonding. In addition, the hydrophilicity of the adhesive may interfere with the durability of the interfacial bond repair because hydrophilic adhesives tend to absorb more water over time, resulting in hydrolytic degradation. Secondly, when universal adhesives with etchant action are applied to enamel or dentin, the buffering capacity of the dental hard tissue neutralizes its acidity.¹⁸ In contrast, during the repair of alkasite based material, the acidic resin monomer was not neutralized because of the absence of apatite, which may have resulted in inadequate polymerization of the newly prepared restorative material.¹⁹

Er;Cr:YSGG laser was employed in this study because of its effectiveness in ablating restorative surfaces using highly energized water molecules.²⁰ Despite its effectiveness over other lasers in restorative repair, the present study did not show superior repair bond strength. This could be due to the inability of the highly viscous alkasite based material to flow into irregularities created by the laser. Despite both etchant and laser rendering the surface of the restoration rough by varying degrees, the use of etchant followed by application of adhesive resulted in better repair bond strength. This could be due to the better flowability of the adhesive, which provided higher micromechanical retention of the restorative material.²¹

The use of burs resulted in the least favorable results in terms of the repair bond strength. To ensure a close adaptation of the aged and newly mixed alkasite based material, there is a need for an intermediate material, as the newly mixed material may not properly wet the aged alkasite based material, making it difficult to achieve the bond. The adhesives help in penetrating into the irregularities and optimizing the bond that would otherwise be difficult due to the high viscosity and low wetting potential of the restorative material.²²^,²³ Though studies have shown that the use of burs for restorative repair is comparable to that of lasers,²⁴ the smear layer produced after the use of burs could have also contributed to the poor repair bond strength.

Further investigations should focus on the analysing the failure modes between the aged and new alkasite based restorative material.

Conclusions

Based on the results of the present study, it can be concluded that repair of alkasite based restorative material with the use of 2-step etch and rinse adhesive resulted in superior bond strength. However, surface roughening techniques such as using a bur or laser irradiation did not show significant improvement in the bond strength.

Data availability statement

Underlying data is available in Figshare at the following link:

https://doi.org/10.6084/m9.figshare.25488814.v2.¹²

Data are available under the terms of the Creative Commons Zero “No rights reserved” data waiver (CC0 1.0 Public domain dedication).

Acknowledgements

The authors extend their appreciation to Dr. Vasudev Ballal for his contribution in offering insights into shaping the study design.

References

1. Özcan M, Barbosa SH, Melo RM, et al.: Effect of surface conditioning methods on the microtensile bond strength of resin composite to composite after aging conditions. Dent. Mater. 2007 Oct [cited 2024 Feb 7]; 23(10): 1276–1282. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
2. Fernández E, Martín J, Vildósola P, et al.: Can repair increase the longevity of composite resins? Results of a 10-year clinical trial. J. Dent. 2015 [cited 2024 Feb 7]; 43(2): 279–286. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
3. Gordan VV, Riley JL, Geraldeli S, et al.: Repair or replacement of defective restorations by dentists in the dental practice-based research network. J. Am. Dent. Assoc. 2012 [cited 2024 Feb 7]; 143(6): 593–601. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text
4. Lucena-Martín C, González-López S, Navajas-Rodríguez De Mondelo JM: The effect of various surface treatments and bonding agents on the repaired strength of heat-treated composites. J. Prosthet. Dent. 2001 [cited 2024 Feb 7]; 86(5): 481–488. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
5. Kanzow P, Wiegand A: Retrospective analysis on the repair vs. replacement of composite restorations. Dent. Mater. 2020 Jan 1 [cited 2024 Feb 7]; 36(1): 108–118. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
6. Martin J, Fernandez E, Estay J, et al.: Minimal invasive treatment for defective restorations: five-year results using sealants. Oper. Dent. 2013 Mar [cited 2024 Feb 7]; 38(2): 125–133. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
7. Bouschlicher MR, Reinhardt JW, Vargas MA: Surface treatment techniques for resin composite repair. Am. J. Dent. 1997 [cited 2024 Feb 7]; 10(6): 279–283. PubMed Abstract
8. Bonstein T, Garlapo D, Donarummo J, et al.: Evaluation of varied repair protocols applied to aged composite resin. J. Adhes. Dent. 2005 [cited 2024 Feb 7]; 7(1): 41–49. PubMed Abstract
9. Cention N (Powder-liquid filling material): Ivoclar Vivadent AG.[cited 2024 Feb 7]. Reference Source
10. Mishra A, Singh G, Singh S, et al.: Comparative Evaluation of Mechanical Properties of Cention N with Conventionally used Restorative Materials—An in vitro Study. Int. J. Prosthodont Restor. Dent. 2018 Dec [cited 2024 Feb 7]; 8(4): 120–124. Publisher Full Text
11. Padipatvuthikul P, Mair LH: Bonding of composite to water aged composite with surface treatments. Dent. Mater. 2007 Apr; 23(4): 519–525. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
12. Purayil TP, Ginjupalli K: Bond strength of Polyalkasite cements with various surface preparations.2024
13. Şişmanoğlu S, Gürcan AT, Yıldırım-Bilmez Z, et al.: Efficacy of different surface treatments and universal adhesives on the microtensile bond strength of bulk-fill composite repair. J. Adhes. Sci. Technol. 2020 May 18 [cited 2024 Feb 7]; 34(10): 1–13. Publisher Full Text
14. Eliasson ST, Tibballs J, Dahl JE: Effect of different surface treatments and adhesives on repair bond strength of resin composites after one and 12 months of storage using an improved microtensile test method. Oper. Dent. 2014 Sep 1 [cited 2024 Feb 7]; 39(5): E206–E216. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
15. Blum IR, Lynch CD, Wilson NHF: Factors influencing repair of dental restorations with resin composite. Clin. Cosmet. Investig. Dent. 2014 [cited 2024 Feb 7]; 6: 81–87. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text
16. Pamir T, Şen BH, Evcin Ö: Effects of etching and adhesive applications on the bond strength between composite resin and glass-ionomer cements. J. Appl. Oral Sci. 2012 [cited 2024 Feb 7]; 20(6): 636–642. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text
17. Furtado MD, Immich F, da Rosa WL d O , et al.: Repair of aged restorations made in direct resin composite – A systematic review. Int. J. Adhes. Adhes. 2023; 124: 103367. Elsevier. Publisher Full Text
18. Camps J, Pashley DH: Buffering action of human dentin in vitro. J. Adhes. Dent. 2000 [cited 2024 Feb 7]; 2(1): 39–50. PubMed Abstract
19. Sanares AME, Itthagarun A, King NM, et al.: Adverse surface interactions between one-bottle light-cured adhesives and chemical-cured composites. Dent. Mater. 2001 [cited 2024 Feb 7]; 17(6): 542–556. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
20. Iaria G: Clinical, morphological, and ultrastructural aspects with the use of Er:YAG and Er,Cr:YSGG lasers in restorative dentistry. Gen. Dent. 2008 [cited 2024 Feb 7]; 56(7): 636–639. PubMed Abstract
21. Hickel R, Brüshaver K, Ilie N: Repair of restorations - Criteria for decision making and clinical recommendations. Dent. Mater. 2013 [cited 2024 Feb 7]; 29: 28–50. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
22. Hannig C, Hahn P, Thiele PP, et al.: Influence of Different Repair Procedures on Bond Strength of Adhesive Filling Materials to Etched Enamel In Vitro. Oper. Dent. 2003 [cited 2024 Feb 7]; 28(6): 800–807. PubMed Abstract
23. Cavalcanti AN, De Lima AF, Peris AR, et al.: Effect of surface treatments and bonding agents on the bond strength of repaired composites. J. Esthet. Restor. Dent. 2007 Apr [cited 2024 Feb 7]; 19(2): 90–98. Publisher Full Text Reference Source
24. Kimyai S, Mohammadi N, Navimipour EJ, et al.: Comparison of the Effect of Three Mechanical Surface Treatments on the Repair Bond Strength of a Laboratory Composite. Photomed. Laser Surg. 2010 Oct 1 [cited 2024 Feb 7]; 28(S2): S-25–S-30. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text

Comments on this article Comments (0)

Version 2

VERSION 2 PUBLISHED 23 Apr 2024

Author details Author details

Tina Puthen Purayil
Roles: Conceptualization, Data Curation, Investigation, Methodology, Resources, Writing – Original Draft Preparation, Writing – Review & Editing

Kishore Ginjupalli
Roles: Conceptualization, Investigation, Methodology, Supervision, Validation, Writing – Original Draft Preparation, Writing – Review & Editing

Kalyana Pentapati
Roles: Conceptualization, Formal Analysis, Methodology, Validation, Writing – Review & Editing

Aastha Dureja
Roles: Conceptualization, Resources, Writing – Original Draft Preparation, Writing – Review & Editing

Rashmi Nayak
Roles: Conceptualization, Resources, Writing – Original Draft Preparation, Writing – Review & Editing

Competing interests

No competing interests were disclosed.

Grant information

The author(s) declared that no grants were involved in supporting this work.

Article Versions (2)

version 2

Revised

Published: 06 Jun 2024, 13:319

https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.148326.2

version 1

Published: 23 Apr 2024, 13:319

https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.148326.1

© 2024 Purayil TP et al. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

Download

Export To

metrics

	Views	Downloads
F1000Research	-	-
PubMed Central Data from PMC are received and updated monthly.	-	-

Citations

SEE MORE DETAILS

CITE

how to cite this article

Purayil TP, Ginjupalli K, Pentapati K et al. Effect of different surface treatments on the repair bond strength between aged and new alkasite based restorative material [version 2; peer review: 2 approved]. F1000Research 2024, 13:319 (https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.148326.2)

NOTE: If applicable, it is important to ensure the information in square brackets after the title is included in all citations of this article.

track

receive updates on this article

Track an article to receive email alerts on any updates to this article.

Open Peer Review

Version 2

VERSION 2

PUBLISHED 06 Jun 2024

Revised

Views

Reviewer Report 21 Jun 2024

Nazmiye Donmez, Restorative Dentistry, Bolu Abant İzzet Baysal University, Bolu, Holy, Turkey

Approved

https://doi.org/10.5256/f1000research.167469.r287256

The author has corrected his article based on the reviewer's suggestions.
... Continue reading

CITE

Report a concern

Respond or Comment

Version 1

VERSION 1

PUBLISHED 23 Apr 2024

Views

Reviewer Report 30 May 2024

Nazmiye Donmez, Restorative Dentistry, Bolu Abant İzzet Baysal University, Bolu, Holy, Turkey

Approved with Reservations

https://doi.org/10.5256/f1000research.162622.r274359

Thank you for the opportunity to review this manuscript. This present study provides useful information about the repair protocol of alkasite restorative material. However, there are several points that need to be corrected in this manuscript. Some of the changes ... Continue reading

“A total of 48 acrylic blocks (4 cm height _ 2 cm width) were prepared using a self-cure acrylic resin.” Sample sizes are written incorrectly in the method section.
“The specimens were then stored in distilled water at 37°C for one month.” Please add a reference to this sentence.
“Group III (ASB2): The surface of alkasite based material was treated with 2 step etch and rinse adhesive where the...” Please write the brand of the adhesive.
“Specimen preparation”: After the completion of the surface preparation of alkasite based material as described above, a freshly mixed alkasite based material as per the manufacturer’s instructions was built up to a height of 4 mm. Subsequently, the material was cured using LED light curing for 40 s.
The second paragraph of the Method section states that the samples were polymerized for 20 seconds. In this sentence, it is stated that it was polymerized for 40 seconds. Polymerization times were used differently in the preparation of the samples. Write the reason.
Add a table where the contents of the adhesives used and the alkasite material, which is the filling material, are written.
After the bonding test, fracture-type analysis of the sample surfaces should be performed and supported by SEM.

Is the work clearly and accurately presented and does it cite the current literature?

Yes
Is the study design appropriate and is the work technically sound?

Partly
Are sufficient details of methods and analysis provided to allow replication by others?

Partly
If applicable, is the statistical analysis and its interpretation appropriate?

Yes
Are all the source data underlying the results available to ensure full reproducibility?

Yes
Are the conclusions drawn adequately supported by the results?

Yes

Competing Interests: No competing interests were disclosed.

Reviewer Expertise: dental restorative materials, fiber-reinforced composite restorations

I confirm that I have read this submission and believe that I have an appropriate level of expertise to confirm that it is of an acceptable scientific standard, however I have significant reservations, as outlined above.

CITE

Report a concern

Author Response 06 Jun 2024

Tina Purayil, Conservative Dentistry and Endodontics, Manipal College of Dental Sciences, Manipal, Manipal Academy of Higher Education, Manipal, 576104, India

06 Jun 2024

Author Response

Methods section:
Query 1“A total of 48 acrylic blocks (4 cm height _ 2 cm width) were prepared using a self-cure acrylic resin.” Sample sizes are written incorrectly in the method ... Continue reading Methods section:
Query 1“A total of 48 acrylic blocks (4 cm height _ 2 cm width) were prepared using a self-cure acrylic resin.” Sample sizes are written incorrectly in the method section.
Response1:
A total of 48 acrylic blocks (4 cm height × 2 cm width) were prepared using a self-cure acrylic resin. One-day after the polymerization of the acrylic blocks, a cylindrical hole of 4 mm × 4 mm was drilled on one side of the acrylic block. These holes were restored with alkasite based material. Hence, sample size was 48 alkasite based material blocks. These 48 blocks underwent surface preparation followed by restoration with newly added alkasite based material and were subsequently subjected to repair bond strength assessment.

Query 2: The specimens were then stored in distilled water at 37°C for one month.” Please add a reference to this sentence.
Response 2: The following reference was added
Padipatvuthikul P, Mair LH. Bonding of composite to water aged composite with surface treatments. Dent Mater. 2007 Apr;23(4):519-25.

Query 3: Group III (ASB2): The surface of alkasite based material was treated with 2 step etch and rinse adhesive where the...” Please write the brand of the adhesive.
Response 3: Manufacturing details have been added to the article; Adper Single Bond 2, 3M ESPE St Paul MN, USA

Query 4: “Specimen preparation”: After the completion of the surface preparation of alkasite based material as described above, a freshly mixed alkasite based material as per the manufacturer’s instructions was built up to a height of 4 mm. Subsequently, the material was cured using LED light curing for 40 s.
The second paragraph of the Method section states that the samples were polymerized for 20 seconds. In this sentence, it is stated that it was polymerized for 40 seconds. Polymerization times were used differently in the preparation of the samples. Write the reason.
Response 4: Apologies for the error. This was due to an oversight. All samples were polymerised for 20 seconds. The manuscript has been edited to reflect this.

Query 5: Add a table where the contents of the adhesives used and the alkasite material, which is the filling material, are written.
Response 5: Added a table with materials used in the study along with their compositions

Query 6: After the bonding test, fracture-type analysis of the sample surfaces should be performed and supported by SEM.
Response 6: Thank you for your insight. We acknowledge this as a limitation of our study. As these methods were resource intensive and expensive, we could not perform the same. We will plan future experiments including SEM.
Methods section:
Query 1“A total of 48 acrylic blocks (4 cm height _ 2 cm width) were prepared using a self-cure acrylic resin.” Sample sizes are written incorrectly in the method section.
Response1:
A total of 48 acrylic blocks (4 cm height × 2 cm width) were prepared using a self-cure acrylic resin. One-day after the polymerization of the acrylic blocks, a cylindrical hole of 4 mm × 4 mm was drilled on one side of the acrylic block. These holes were restored with alkasite based material. Hence, sample size was 48 alkasite based material blocks. These 48 blocks underwent surface preparation followed by restoration with newly added alkasite based material and were subsequently subjected to repair bond strength assessment.

Query 2: The specimens were then stored in distilled water at 37°C for one month.” Please add a reference to this sentence.
Response 2: The following reference was added
Padipatvuthikul P, Mair LH. Bonding of composite to water aged composite with surface treatments. Dent Mater. 2007 Apr;23(4):519-25.

Query 3: Group III (ASB2): The surface of alkasite based material was treated with 2 step etch and rinse adhesive where the...” Please write the brand of the adhesive.
Response 3: Manufacturing details have been added to the article; Adper Single Bond 2, 3M ESPE St Paul MN, USA

Query 4: “Specimen preparation”: After the completion of the surface preparation of alkasite based material as described above, a freshly mixed alkasite based material as per the manufacturer’s instructions was built up to a height of 4 mm. Subsequently, the material was cured using LED light curing for 40 s.
The second paragraph of the Method section states that the samples were polymerized for 20 seconds. In this sentence, it is stated that it was polymerized for 40 seconds. Polymerization times were used differently in the preparation of the samples. Write the reason.
Response 4: Apologies for the error. This was due to an oversight. All samples were polymerised for 20 seconds. The manuscript has been edited to reflect this.

Query 5: Add a table where the contents of the adhesives used and the alkasite material, which is the filling material, are written.
Response 5: Added a table with materials used in the study along with their compositions

Query 6: After the bonding test, fracture-type analysis of the sample surfaces should be performed and supported by SEM.
Response 6: Thank you for your insight. We acknowledge this as a limitation of our study. As these methods were resource intensive and expensive, we could not perform the same. We will plan future experiments including SEM.
Competing Interests: No competing interests were disclosed. Close
Report a concern
Respond or Comment

COMMENTS ON THIS REPORT

Author Response 06 Jun 2024

Tina Purayil, Conservative Dentistry and Endodontics, Manipal College of Dental Sciences, Manipal, Manipal Academy of Higher Education, Manipal, 576104, India

06 Jun 2024

Author Response

Methods section:
Query 1“A total of 48 acrylic blocks (4 cm height _ 2 cm width) were prepared using a self-cure acrylic resin.” Sample sizes are written incorrectly in the method ... Continue reading Methods section:
Query 1“A total of 48 acrylic blocks (4 cm height _ 2 cm width) were prepared using a self-cure acrylic resin.” Sample sizes are written incorrectly in the method section.
Response1:
A total of 48 acrylic blocks (4 cm height × 2 cm width) were prepared using a self-cure acrylic resin. One-day after the polymerization of the acrylic blocks, a cylindrical hole of 4 mm × 4 mm was drilled on one side of the acrylic block. These holes were restored with alkasite based material. Hence, sample size was 48 alkasite based material blocks. These 48 blocks underwent surface preparation followed by restoration with newly added alkasite based material and were subsequently subjected to repair bond strength assessment.

Query 2: The specimens were then stored in distilled water at 37°C for one month.” Please add a reference to this sentence.
Response 2: The following reference was added
Padipatvuthikul P, Mair LH. Bonding of composite to water aged composite with surface treatments. Dent Mater. 2007 Apr;23(4):519-25.

Query 3: Group III (ASB2): The surface of alkasite based material was treated with 2 step etch and rinse adhesive where the...” Please write the brand of the adhesive.
Response 3: Manufacturing details have been added to the article; Adper Single Bond 2, 3M ESPE St Paul MN, USA

Query 4: “Specimen preparation”: After the completion of the surface preparation of alkasite based material as described above, a freshly mixed alkasite based material as per the manufacturer’s instructions was built up to a height of 4 mm. Subsequently, the material was cured using LED light curing for 40 s.
The second paragraph of the Method section states that the samples were polymerized for 20 seconds. In this sentence, it is stated that it was polymerized for 40 seconds. Polymerization times were used differently in the preparation of the samples. Write the reason.
Response 4: Apologies for the error. This was due to an oversight. All samples were polymerised for 20 seconds. The manuscript has been edited to reflect this.

Query 5: Add a table where the contents of the adhesives used and the alkasite material, which is the filling material, are written.
Response 5: Added a table with materials used in the study along with their compositions

Query 6: After the bonding test, fracture-type analysis of the sample surfaces should be performed and supported by SEM.
Response 6: Thank you for your insight. We acknowledge this as a limitation of our study. As these methods were resource intensive and expensive, we could not perform the same. We will plan future experiments including SEM.
Methods section:
Query 1“A total of 48 acrylic blocks (4 cm height _ 2 cm width) were prepared using a self-cure acrylic resin.” Sample sizes are written incorrectly in the method section.
Response1:
A total of 48 acrylic blocks (4 cm height × 2 cm width) were prepared using a self-cure acrylic resin. One-day after the polymerization of the acrylic blocks, a cylindrical hole of 4 mm × 4 mm was drilled on one side of the acrylic block. These holes were restored with alkasite based material. Hence, sample size was 48 alkasite based material blocks. These 48 blocks underwent surface preparation followed by restoration with newly added alkasite based material and were subsequently subjected to repair bond strength assessment.

Query 2: The specimens were then stored in distilled water at 37°C for one month.” Please add a reference to this sentence.
Response 2: The following reference was added
Padipatvuthikul P, Mair LH. Bonding of composite to water aged composite with surface treatments. Dent Mater. 2007 Apr;23(4):519-25.

Query 3: Group III (ASB2): The surface of alkasite based material was treated with 2 step etch and rinse adhesive where the...” Please write the brand of the adhesive.
Response 3: Manufacturing details have been added to the article; Adper Single Bond 2, 3M ESPE St Paul MN, USA

Query 4: “Specimen preparation”: After the completion of the surface preparation of alkasite based material as described above, a freshly mixed alkasite based material as per the manufacturer’s instructions was built up to a height of 4 mm. Subsequently, the material was cured using LED light curing for 40 s.
The second paragraph of the Method section states that the samples were polymerized for 20 seconds. In this sentence, it is stated that it was polymerized for 40 seconds. Polymerization times were used differently in the preparation of the samples. Write the reason.
Response 4: Apologies for the error. This was due to an oversight. All samples were polymerised for 20 seconds. The manuscript has been edited to reflect this.

Query 5: Add a table where the contents of the adhesives used and the alkasite material, which is the filling material, are written.
Response 5: Added a table with materials used in the study along with their compositions

Query 6: After the bonding test, fracture-type analysis of the sample surfaces should be performed and supported by SEM.
Response 6: Thank you for your insight. We acknowledge this as a limitation of our study. As these methods were resource intensive and expensive, we could not perform the same. We will plan future experiments including SEM.
Competing Interests: No competing interests were disclosed. Close
Report a concern

Views

Reviewer Report 25 May 2024

Emad Farhan Alkhalidi, College Of Dentistry, University Of Mosul, Mosul, Iraq

Approved

https://doi.org/10.5256/f1000research.162622.r274360

Comments to author(s)
Dear authors,
The subject is of interest but there are some points should be corrected.

Title:
Its better to be as "Effect of different surface treatments on bond strength of repairing alkasite based restorative material".

Abstract:
The background needs rephrasing for "This study investigates various surface treatment methods to assess shear bond strength between set Cention N (alkasite-based restorative material) and fresh alkasite based restorative material.(mention N)."

Method l:
line 9; Please write the statistics test in sequential manner

Results:
Rephrase, "this is conclusion"

Methodology
Rephrase first 3 lines, remove "aging to the acrylic block". This is not your main work. It causes confusion to reader. Put "aging" in line 8, "the specimens were aging (stored in distilled water at 37c for one month)."
Throughout the paper write manufacturing details for materials and devices.
Rewrite statistical analysis tests in sequential manner.
Reference 11 in statistical analysis referred to what results?
Line 1- "one way ANOVA showed that there was Levene’s test showed" you don't write it before
Please check the tests of statistical analysis.
Table 2 needs more details and explanations.

References:
Ref 12, 13 not present in the article. Please check it.

Is the work clearly and accurately presented and does it cite the current literature?

Partly
Is the study design appropriate and is the work technically sound?

Yes
Are sufficient details of methods and analysis provided to allow replication by others?

Yes
If applicable, is the statistical analysis and its interpretation appropriate?

Partly
Are all the source data underlying the results available to ensure full reproducibility?

Partly
Are the conclusions drawn adequately supported by the results?

Yes

Competing Interests: No competing interests were disclosed.

Reviewer Expertise: conservative dentistry, endodontics, crown and bridge

I confirm that I have read this submission and believe that I have an appropriate level of expertise to confirm that it is of an acceptable scientific standard.

CITE

Report a concern

Author Response 06 Jun 2024

Tina Purayil, Conservative Dentistry and Endodontics, Manipal College of Dental Sciences, Manipal, Manipal Academy of Higher Education, Manipal, 576104, India

06 Jun 2024

Author Response

Thanks for the comments. The following edit was done in the manuscript

Query1: Title: Its better to be as "Effect of different surface treatments on bond strength of repairing ... Continue reading Thanks for the comments. The following edit was done in the manuscript

Query1: Title: Its better to be as "Effect of different surface treatments on bond strength of repairing alkasite based restorative material".
Response 1: Title has been updated accordingly to maintain clarity and integrity “Effect of different surface treatments on the repair bond strength between aged and new alkasite based restorative material”

Query 2 Abstract: The background needs rephrasing for "This study investigates various surface treatment methods to assess shear bond strength between set Cention N (alkasite-based restorative material) and fresh alkasite based restorative material. (mention N)."
Response 2: Abstract background has been rephrased as suggested. To avoid confusion, we have replaced the word “fresh” with “new”
Revised text-This study investigates various surface treatment methods to assess shear bond strength between set Cention N (alkasite-based restorative material) and new alkasite based restorative material.

Query 3 Method: line 9; Please write the statistics test in sequential manner.
Response 3: Shapiro-Wilk and Levene's tests were used to check normality and Homogeneity of variance.

Query 4 :Results: Rephrase, "this is conclusion"
Response 4: The sentence has been edited to “Using a 2-step etch and rinse adhesive resulted in a higher repair bond strength (26.05±2.12) compared to other surface treatments. In contrast, roughening of the surface with burs led to lowest repair bond strength (17.06±3.29) (P=0.02)”

Methodology
Query 5: Rephrase first 3 lines, remove "aging to the acrylic block". This is not your main work. It causes confusion to reader. Put "aging" in line 8, "the specimens were aging (stored in distilled water at 37c for one month)."
Response 5: First three lines has been rephrased and aging repositioned as suggested.
Revised text-One-day after the polymerization of the acrylic blocks, a cylindrical hole of 4 mm × 4 mm was drilled on one side of the acrylic block.
The specimens were then stored in distilled water at 37°C for one month for aging.

Query 6: Throughout the paper write manufacturing details for materials and devices.
Response 6: Manufacturing details for materials and devices have been added
Self-cure acrylic resin (DPI-RR Cold Cure, DPI, Mumbai, India)

High speed handpiece (NSK M25, Nakanishi Inc, Kanuma City, Japan)

Query 7: Rewrite statistical analysis tests in sequential manner.
Response 7: We have edited it as follows:
“Data were analyzed using SPSS version 20 (IBM Corp. Released 2011. IBM SPSS Statistics for Windows, Version 20.0. Armonk, NY: IBM Corp.). Statistical significance was set at P<0.05. Normality was tested using the Shapiro-Wilk test. Based on the normality, and test of homogeneity of the variances (Levene statistic) mean were compared using ANOVA with post-hoc Games-Howell test. Subsequently, a two-way ANOVA with post-hoc Bonferroni test for inter-group comparisons was performed to evaluate the role of surface preparation and adhesive application on the repair bond strength.”

Query 8: Reference 11 in statistical analysis referred to what results?
Response 8: Reference 11 is the underlying raw data of this research as per journal guidelines.

Query 9: Line 1- "one way ANOVA showed that there was Levene’s test showed" you don't write it before. Please check the tests of statistical analysis.
Response 9: This has been edited as per the comment in Query7.

Query 10: Table 2 needs more details and explanations.
Response 10: Table 2 has been revised with more details and explanation

References:
Query 11: Ref 12, 13 not present in the article. Please check it.
Response 11: Reference 12 and 13 were cited in the first paragraph of the discussion
Thanks for the comments. The following edit was done in the manuscript

Query1: Title: Its better to be as "Effect of different surface treatments on bond strength of repairing alkasite based restorative material".
Response 1: Title has been updated accordingly to maintain clarity and integrity “Effect of different surface treatments on the repair bond strength between aged and new alkasite based restorative material”

Query 2 Abstract: The background needs rephrasing for "This study investigates various surface treatment methods to assess shear bond strength between set Cention N (alkasite-based restorative material) and fresh alkasite based restorative material. (mention N)."
Response 2: Abstract background has been rephrased as suggested. To avoid confusion, we have replaced the word “fresh” with “new”
Revised text-This study investigates various surface treatment methods to assess shear bond strength between set Cention N (alkasite-based restorative material) and new alkasite based restorative material.

Query 3 Method: line 9; Please write the statistics test in sequential manner.
Response 3: Shapiro-Wilk and Levene's tests were used to check normality and Homogeneity of variance.

Query 4 :Results: Rephrase, "this is conclusion"
Response 4: The sentence has been edited to “Using a 2-step etch and rinse adhesive resulted in a higher repair bond strength (26.05±2.12) compared to other surface treatments. In contrast, roughening of the surface with burs led to lowest repair bond strength (17.06±3.29) (P=0.02)”

Methodology
Query 5: Rephrase first 3 lines, remove "aging to the acrylic block". This is not your main work. It causes confusion to reader. Put "aging" in line 8, "the specimens were aging (stored in distilled water at 37c for one month)."
Response 5: First three lines has been rephrased and aging repositioned as suggested.
Revised text-One-day after the polymerization of the acrylic blocks, a cylindrical hole of 4 mm × 4 mm was drilled on one side of the acrylic block.
The specimens were then stored in distilled water at 37°C for one month for aging.

Query 6: Throughout the paper write manufacturing details for materials and devices.
Response 6: Manufacturing details for materials and devices have been added
Self-cure acrylic resin (DPI-RR Cold Cure, DPI, Mumbai, India)

High speed handpiece (NSK M25, Nakanishi Inc, Kanuma City, Japan)

Query 7: Rewrite statistical analysis tests in sequential manner.
Response 7: We have edited it as follows:
“Data were analyzed using SPSS version 20 (IBM Corp. Released 2011. IBM SPSS Statistics for Windows, Version 20.0. Armonk, NY: IBM Corp.). Statistical significance was set at P<0.05. Normality was tested using the Shapiro-Wilk test. Based on the normality, and test of homogeneity of the variances (Levene statistic) mean were compared using ANOVA with post-hoc Games-Howell test. Subsequently, a two-way ANOVA with post-hoc Bonferroni test for inter-group comparisons was performed to evaluate the role of surface preparation and adhesive application on the repair bond strength.”

Query 8: Reference 11 in statistical analysis referred to what results?
Response 8: Reference 11 is the underlying raw data of this research as per journal guidelines.

Query 9: Line 1- "one way ANOVA showed that there was Levene’s test showed" you don't write it before. Please check the tests of statistical analysis.
Response 9: This has been edited as per the comment in Query7.

Query 10: Table 2 needs more details and explanations.
Response 10: Table 2 has been revised with more details and explanation

References:
Query 11: Ref 12, 13 not present in the article. Please check it.
Response 11: Reference 12 and 13 were cited in the first paragraph of the discussion
Competing Interests: No competing interests were disclosed. Close
Report a concern
Respond or Comment

COMMENTS ON THIS REPORT

Author Response 06 Jun 2024

Tina Purayil, Conservative Dentistry and Endodontics, Manipal College of Dental Sciences, Manipal, Manipal Academy of Higher Education, Manipal, 576104, India

06 Jun 2024

Author Response

Thanks for the comments. The following edit was done in the manuscript

Query1: Title: Its better to be as "Effect of different surface treatments on bond strength of repairing ... Continue reading Thanks for the comments. The following edit was done in the manuscript

Query1: Title: Its better to be as "Effect of different surface treatments on bond strength of repairing alkasite based restorative material".
Response 1: Title has been updated accordingly to maintain clarity and integrity “Effect of different surface treatments on the repair bond strength between aged and new alkasite based restorative material”

Query 2 Abstract: The background needs rephrasing for "This study investigates various surface treatment methods to assess shear bond strength between set Cention N (alkasite-based restorative material) and fresh alkasite based restorative material. (mention N)."
Response 2: Abstract background has been rephrased as suggested. To avoid confusion, we have replaced the word “fresh” with “new”
Revised text-This study investigates various surface treatment methods to assess shear bond strength between set Cention N (alkasite-based restorative material) and new alkasite based restorative material.

Query 3 Method: line 9; Please write the statistics test in sequential manner.
Response 3: Shapiro-Wilk and Levene's tests were used to check normality and Homogeneity of variance.

Query 4 :Results: Rephrase, "this is conclusion"
Response 4: The sentence has been edited to “Using a 2-step etch and rinse adhesive resulted in a higher repair bond strength (26.05±2.12) compared to other surface treatments. In contrast, roughening of the surface with burs led to lowest repair bond strength (17.06±3.29) (P=0.02)”

Methodology
Query 5: Rephrase first 3 lines, remove "aging to the acrylic block". This is not your main work. It causes confusion to reader. Put "aging" in line 8, "the specimens were aging (stored in distilled water at 37c for one month)."
Response 5: First three lines has been rephrased and aging repositioned as suggested.
Revised text-One-day after the polymerization of the acrylic blocks, a cylindrical hole of 4 mm × 4 mm was drilled on one side of the acrylic block.
The specimens were then stored in distilled water at 37°C for one month for aging.

Query 6: Throughout the paper write manufacturing details for materials and devices.
Response 6: Manufacturing details for materials and devices have been added
Self-cure acrylic resin (DPI-RR Cold Cure, DPI, Mumbai, India)

High speed handpiece (NSK M25, Nakanishi Inc, Kanuma City, Japan)

Query 7: Rewrite statistical analysis tests in sequential manner.
Response 7: We have edited it as follows:
“Data were analyzed using SPSS version 20 (IBM Corp. Released 2011. IBM SPSS Statistics for Windows, Version 20.0. Armonk, NY: IBM Corp.). Statistical significance was set at P<0.05. Normality was tested using the Shapiro-Wilk test. Based on the normality, and test of homogeneity of the variances (Levene statistic) mean were compared using ANOVA with post-hoc Games-Howell test. Subsequently, a two-way ANOVA with post-hoc Bonferroni test for inter-group comparisons was performed to evaluate the role of surface preparation and adhesive application on the repair bond strength.”

Query 8: Reference 11 in statistical analysis referred to what results?
Response 8: Reference 11 is the underlying raw data of this research as per journal guidelines.

Query 9: Line 1- "one way ANOVA showed that there was Levene’s test showed" you don't write it before. Please check the tests of statistical analysis.
Response 9: This has been edited as per the comment in Query7.

Query 10: Table 2 needs more details and explanations.
Response 10: Table 2 has been revised with more details and explanation

References:
Query 11: Ref 12, 13 not present in the article. Please check it.
Response 11: Reference 12 and 13 were cited in the first paragraph of the discussion
Thanks for the comments. The following edit was done in the manuscript

Query1: Title: Its better to be as "Effect of different surface treatments on bond strength of repairing alkasite based restorative material".
Response 1: Title has been updated accordingly to maintain clarity and integrity “Effect of different surface treatments on the repair bond strength between aged and new alkasite based restorative material”

Query 2 Abstract: The background needs rephrasing for "This study investigates various surface treatment methods to assess shear bond strength between set Cention N (alkasite-based restorative material) and fresh alkasite based restorative material. (mention N)."
Response 2: Abstract background has been rephrased as suggested. To avoid confusion, we have replaced the word “fresh” with “new”
Revised text-This study investigates various surface treatment methods to assess shear bond strength between set Cention N (alkasite-based restorative material) and new alkasite based restorative material.

Query 3 Method: line 9; Please write the statistics test in sequential manner.
Response 3: Shapiro-Wilk and Levene's tests were used to check normality and Homogeneity of variance.

Query 4 :Results: Rephrase, "this is conclusion"
Response 4: The sentence has been edited to “Using a 2-step etch and rinse adhesive resulted in a higher repair bond strength (26.05±2.12) compared to other surface treatments. In contrast, roughening of the surface with burs led to lowest repair bond strength (17.06±3.29) (P=0.02)”

Methodology
Query 5: Rephrase first 3 lines, remove "aging to the acrylic block". This is not your main work. It causes confusion to reader. Put "aging" in line 8, "the specimens were aging (stored in distilled water at 37c for one month)."
Response 5: First three lines has been rephrased and aging repositioned as suggested.
Revised text-One-day after the polymerization of the acrylic blocks, a cylindrical hole of 4 mm × 4 mm was drilled on one side of the acrylic block.
The specimens were then stored in distilled water at 37°C for one month for aging.

Query 6: Throughout the paper write manufacturing details for materials and devices.
Response 6: Manufacturing details for materials and devices have been added
Self-cure acrylic resin (DPI-RR Cold Cure, DPI, Mumbai, India)

High speed handpiece (NSK M25, Nakanishi Inc, Kanuma City, Japan)

Query 7: Rewrite statistical analysis tests in sequential manner.
Response 7: We have edited it as follows:
“Data were analyzed using SPSS version 20 (IBM Corp. Released 2011. IBM SPSS Statistics for Windows, Version 20.0. Armonk, NY: IBM Corp.). Statistical significance was set at P<0.05. Normality was tested using the Shapiro-Wilk test. Based on the normality, and test of homogeneity of the variances (Levene statistic) mean were compared using ANOVA with post-hoc Games-Howell test. Subsequently, a two-way ANOVA with post-hoc Bonferroni test for inter-group comparisons was performed to evaluate the role of surface preparation and adhesive application on the repair bond strength.”

Query 8: Reference 11 in statistical analysis referred to what results?
Response 8: Reference 11 is the underlying raw data of this research as per journal guidelines.

Query 9: Line 1- "one way ANOVA showed that there was Levene’s test showed" you don't write it before. Please check the tests of statistical analysis.
Response 9: This has been edited as per the comment in Query7.

Query 10: Table 2 needs more details and explanations.
Response 10: Table 2 has been revised with more details and explanation

References:
Query 11: Ref 12, 13 not present in the article. Please check it.
Response 11: Reference 12 and 13 were cited in the first paragraph of the discussion
Competing Interests: No competing interests were disclosed. Close
Report a concern

Comments on this article Comments (0)

Version 2

VERSION 2 PUBLISHED 23 Apr 2024

Open Peer Review

Reviewer Status

Reviewer Reports

	Invited Reviewers
	1	2
Version 2 (revision) 06 Jun 24		read
Version 1 23 Apr 24	read	read

Emad Farhan Alkhalidi, University Of Mosul, Mosul, Iraq
Nazmiye Donmez, Bolu Abant İzzet Baysal University, Bolu, Turkey

Comments on this article

All Comments(0)

Add a comment

Browse by related subjects

Back to all reports

Reviewer Report

6 Views

21 Jun 2024 | for Version 2

Nazmiye Donmez, Restorative Dentistry, Bolu Abant İzzet Baysal University, Bolu, Holy, Turkey

6 Views Cite this report Responses(0)

Approved

The author has corrected his article based on the reviewer's suggestions.
I believe this manuscript paper is suitable for indexing in F1000 Research.

Competing Interests

No competing interests were disclosed.

Reviewer Expertise

dental restorative materials, fiber-reinforced composite restorations

I confirm that I have read this submission and believe that I have an appropriate level of expertise to confirm that it is of an acceptable scientific standard.

Respond to this report

Responses (0)

Back to all reports

Reviewer Report

11 Views

30 May 2024 | for Version 1

Nazmiye Donmez, Restorative Dentistry, Bolu Abant İzzet Baysal University, Bolu, Holy, Turkey

11 Views Cite this report Responses(1)

Approved With Reservations

“A total of 48 acrylic blocks (4 cm height _ 2 cm width) were prepared using a self-cure acrylic resin.” Sample sizes are written incorrectly in the method section.
“The specimens were then stored in distilled water at 37°C for one month.” Please add a reference to this sentence.
“Group III (ASB2): The surface of alkasite based material was treated with 2 step etch and rinse adhesive where the...” Please write the brand of the adhesive.
“Specimen preparation”: After the completion of the surface preparation of alkasite based material as described above, a freshly mixed alkasite based material as per the manufacturer’s instructions was built up to a height of 4 mm. Subsequently, the material was cured using LED light curing for 40 s.
The second paragraph of the Method section states that the samples were polymerized for 20 seconds. In this sentence, it is stated that it was polymerized for 40 seconds. Polymerization times were used differently in the preparation of the samples. Write the reason.
Add a table where the contents of the adhesives used and the alkasite material, which is the filling material, are written.
After the bonding test, fracture-type analysis of the sample surfaces should be performed and supported by SEM.

Is the work clearly and accurately presented and does it cite the current literature?

Yes
Is the study design appropriate and is the work technically sound?

Partly
Are sufficient details of methods and analysis provided to allow replication by others?

Partly
If applicable, is the statistical analysis and its interpretation appropriate?

Yes
Are all the source data underlying the results available to ensure full reproducibility?

Yes
Are the conclusions drawn adequately supported by the results?

Yes

Competing Interests

No competing interests were disclosed.

Reviewer Expertise

dental restorative materials, fiber-reinforced composite restorations

Respond to this report

Responses (1)

Author Response

06 Jun 2024

Tina Purayil, Conservative Dentistry and Endodontics, Manipal College of Dental Sciences, Manipal, Manipal Academy of Higher Education, Manipal, 576104, India

Methods section:
Query 1“A total of 48 acrylic blocks (4 cm height _ 2 cm width) were prepared using a self-cure acrylic resin.” Sample sizes are written incorrectly in the method section.
Response1:
A total of 48 acrylic blocks (4 cm height × 2 cm width) were prepared using a self-cure acrylic resin. One-day after the polymerization of the acrylic blocks, a cylindrical hole of 4 mm × 4 mm was drilled on one side of the acrylic block. These holes were restored with alkasite based material. Hence, sample size was 48 alkasite based material blocks. These 48 blocks underwent surface preparation followed by restoration with newly added alkasite based material and were subsequently subjected to repair bond strength assessment.

Query 2: The specimens were then stored in distilled water at 37°C for one month.” Please add a reference to this sentence.
Response 2: The following reference was added
Padipatvuthikul P, Mair LH. Bonding of composite to water aged composite with surface treatments. Dent Mater. 2007 Apr;23(4):519-25.

Query 3: Group III (ASB2): The surface of alkasite based material was treated with 2 step etch and rinse adhesive where the...” Please write the brand of the adhesive.
Response 3: Manufacturing details have been added to the article; Adper Single Bond 2, 3M ESPE St Paul MN, USA

Query 4: “Specimen preparation”: After the completion of the surface preparation of alkasite based material as described above, a freshly mixed alkasite based material as per the manufacturer’s instructions was built up to a height of 4 mm. Subsequently, the material was cured using LED light curing for 40 s.
The second paragraph of the Method section states that the samples were polymerized for 20 seconds. In this sentence, it is stated that it was polymerized for 40 seconds. Polymerization times were used differently in the preparation of the samples. Write the reason.
Response 4: Apologies for the error. This was due to an oversight. All samples were polymerised for 20 seconds. The manuscript has been edited to reflect this.

Query 5: Add a table where the contents of the adhesives used and the alkasite material, which is the filling material, are written.
Response 5: Added a table with materials used in the study along with their compositions

Query 6: After the bonding test, fracture-type analysis of the sample surfaces should be performed and supported by SEM.
Response 6: Thank you for your insight. We acknowledge this as a limitation of our study. As these methods were resource intensive and expensive, we could not perform the same. We will plan future experiments including SEM.

View more View less

Competing Interests

No competing interests were disclosed.

Back to all reports

Reviewer Report

8 Views

25 May 2024 | for Version 1

Emad Farhan Alkhalidi, College Of Dentistry, University Of Mosul, Mosul, Iraq

8 Views Cite this report Responses(1)

Approved

Is the work clearly and accurately presented and does it cite the current literature?

Partly
Is the study design appropriate and is the work technically sound?

Yes
Are sufficient details of methods and analysis provided to allow replication by others?

Yes
If applicable, is the statistical analysis and its interpretation appropriate?

Partly
Are all the source data underlying the results available to ensure full reproducibility?

Partly
Are the conclusions drawn adequately supported by the results?

Yes

Competing Interests

No competing interests were disclosed.

Reviewer Expertise

conservative dentistry, endodontics, crown and bridge

I confirm that I have read this submission and believe that I have an appropriate level of expertise to confirm that it is of an acceptable scientific standard.

Respond to this report

Responses (1)

Author Response

06 Jun 2024

Tina Purayil, Conservative Dentistry and Endodontics, Manipal College of Dental Sciences, Manipal, Manipal Academy of Higher Education, Manipal, 576104, India

Thanks for the comments. The following edit was done in the manuscript

Query1: Title: Its better to be as "Effect of different surface treatments on bond strength of repairing alkasite based restorative material".
Response 1: Title has been updated accordingly to maintain clarity and integrity “Effect of different surface treatments on the repair bond strength between aged and new alkasite based restorative material”

Query 2 Abstract: The background needs rephrasing for "This study investigates various surface treatment methods to assess shear bond strength between set Cention N (alkasite-based restorative material) and fresh alkasite based restorative material. (mention N)."
Response 2: Abstract background has been rephrased as suggested. To avoid confusion, we have replaced the word “fresh” with “new”
Revised text-This study investigates various surface treatment methods to assess shear bond strength between set Cention N (alkasite-based restorative material) and new alkasite based restorative material.

Query 3 Method: line 9; Please write the statistics test in sequential manner.
Response 3: Shapiro-Wilk and Levene's tests were used to check normality and Homogeneity of variance.

Query 4 :Results: Rephrase, "this is conclusion"
Response 4: The sentence has been edited to “Using a 2-step etch and rinse adhesive resulted in a higher repair bond strength (26.05±2.12) compared to other surface treatments. In contrast, roughening of the surface with burs led to lowest repair bond strength (17.06±3.29) (P=0.02)”

Methodology
Query 5: Rephrase first 3 lines, remove "aging to the acrylic block". This is not your main work. It causes confusion to reader. Put "aging" in line 8, "the specimens were aging (stored in distilled water at 37c for one month)."
Response 5: First three lines has been rephrased and aging repositioned as suggested.
Revised text-One-day after the polymerization of the acrylic blocks, a cylindrical hole of 4 mm × 4 mm was drilled on one side of the acrylic block.
The specimens were then stored in distilled water at 37°C for one month for aging.

Query 6: Throughout the paper write manufacturing details for materials and devices.
Response 6: Manufacturing details for materials and devices have been added
Self-cure acrylic resin (DPI-RR Cold Cure, DPI, Mumbai, India)

High speed handpiece (NSK M25, Nakanishi Inc, Kanuma City, Japan)

Query 7: Rewrite statistical analysis tests in sequential manner.
Response 7: We have edited it as follows:
“Data were analyzed using SPSS version 20 (IBM Corp. Released 2011. IBM SPSS Statistics for Windows, Version 20.0. Armonk, NY: IBM Corp.). Statistical significance was set at P<0.05. Normality was tested using the Shapiro-Wilk test. Based on the normality, and test of homogeneity of the variances (Levene statistic) mean were compared using ANOVA with post-hoc Games-Howell test. Subsequently, a two-way ANOVA with post-hoc Bonferroni test for inter-group comparisons was performed to evaluate the role of surface preparation and adhesive application on the repair bond strength.”

Query 8: Reference 11 in statistical analysis referred to what results?
Response 8: Reference 11 is the underlying raw data of this research as per journal guidelines.

Query 9: Line 1- "one way ANOVA showed that there was Levene’s test showed" you don't write it before. Please check the tests of statistical analysis.
Response 9: This has been edited as per the comment in Query7.

Query 10: Table 2 needs more details and explanations.
Response 10: Table 2 has been revised with more details and explanation

References:
Query 11: Ref 12, 13 not present in the article. Please check it.
Response 11: Reference 12 and 13 were cited in the first paragraph of the discussion

View more View less

Competing Interests

No competing interests were disclosed.

Alongside their report, reviewers assign a status to the article:

Approved - the paper is scientifically sound in its current form and only minor, if any, improvements are suggested

Approved with reservations - A number of small changes, sometimes more significant revisions are required to address specific details and improve the papers academic merit.

Not approved - fundamental flaws in the paper seriously undermine the findings and conclusions

[1] 1. Özcan M, Barbosa SH, Melo RM, et al.: Effect of surface conditioning methods on the microtensile bond strength of resin composite to composite after aging conditions. Dent. Mater. 2007 Oct [cited 2024 Feb 7]; 23(10): 1276–1282. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text

[2] 2. Fernández E, Martín J, Vildósola P, et al.: Can repair increase the longevity of composite resins? Results of a 10-year clinical trial. J. Dent. 2015 [cited 2024 Feb 7]; 43(2): 279–286. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text

[3] 3. Gordan VV, Riley JL, Geraldeli S, et al.: Repair or replacement of defective restorations by dentists in the dental practice-based research network. J. Am. Dent. Assoc. 2012 [cited 2024 Feb 7]; 143(6): 593–601. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text

[4] 4. Lucena-Martín C, González-López S, Navajas-Rodríguez De Mondelo JM: The effect of various surface treatments and bonding agents on the repaired strength of heat-treated composites. J. Prosthet. Dent. 2001 [cited 2024 Feb 7]; 86(5): 481–488. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text

[5] 5. Kanzow P, Wiegand A: Retrospective analysis on the repair vs. replacement of composite restorations. Dent. Mater. 2020 Jan 1 [cited 2024 Feb 7]; 36(1): 108–118. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text

[6] 6. Martin J, Fernandez E, Estay J, et al.: Minimal invasive treatment for defective restorations: five-year results using sealants. Oper. Dent. 2013 Mar [cited 2024 Feb 7]; 38(2): 125–133. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text

[7] 7. Bouschlicher MR, Reinhardt JW, Vargas MA: Surface treatment techniques for resin composite repair. Am. J. Dent. 1997 [cited 2024 Feb 7]; 10(6): 279–283. PubMed Abstract

[8] 8. Bonstein T, Garlapo D, Donarummo J, et al.: Evaluation of varied repair protocols applied to aged composite resin. J. Adhes. Dent. 2005 [cited 2024 Feb 7]; 7(1): 41–49. PubMed Abstract

[9] 9. Cention N (Powder-liquid filling material): Ivoclar Vivadent AG.[cited 2024 Feb 7]. Reference Source

[10] 10. Mishra A, Singh G, Singh S, et al.: Comparative Evaluation of Mechanical Properties of Cention N with Conventionally used Restorative Materials—An in vitro Study. Int. J. Prosthodont Restor. Dent. 2018 Dec [cited 2024 Feb 7]; 8(4): 120–124. Publisher Full Text

[11] 11. Padipatvuthikul P, Mair LH: Bonding of composite to water aged composite with surface treatments. Dent. Mater. 2007 Apr; 23(4): 519–525. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text

[12] 12. Purayil TP, Ginjupalli K: Bond strength of Polyalkasite cements with various surface preparations.2024

[13] 13. Şişmanoğlu S, Gürcan AT, Yıldırım-Bilmez Z, et al.: Efficacy of different surface treatments and universal adhesives on the microtensile bond strength of bulk-fill composite repair. J. Adhes. Sci. Technol. 2020 May 18 [cited 2024 Feb 7]; 34(10): 1–13. Publisher Full Text

[14] 14. Eliasson ST, Tibballs J, Dahl JE: Effect of different surface treatments and adhesives on repair bond strength of resin composites after one and 12 months of storage using an improved microtensile test method. Oper. Dent. 2014 Sep 1 [cited 2024 Feb 7]; 39(5): E206–E216. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text

[15] 15. Blum IR, Lynch CD, Wilson NHF: Factors influencing repair of dental restorations with resin composite. Clin. Cosmet. Investig. Dent. 2014 [cited 2024 Feb 7]; 6: 81–87. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text

[16] 16. Pamir T, Şen BH, Evcin Ö: Effects of etching and adhesive applications on the bond strength between composite resin and glass-ionomer cements. J. Appl. Oral Sci. 2012 [cited 2024 Feb 7]; 20(6): 636–642. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text

[17] 17. Furtado MD, Immich F, da Rosa WL d O , et al.: Repair of aged restorations made in direct resin composite – A systematic review. Int. J. Adhes. Adhes. 2023; 124: 103367. Elsevier. Publisher Full Text

[18] 18. Camps J, Pashley DH: Buffering action of human dentin in vitro. J. Adhes. Dent. 2000 [cited 2024 Feb 7]; 2(1): 39–50. PubMed Abstract

[19] 19. Sanares AME, Itthagarun A, King NM, et al.: Adverse surface interactions between one-bottle light-cured adhesives and chemical-cured composites. Dent. Mater. 2001 [cited 2024 Feb 7]; 17(6): 542–556. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text

[20] 20. Iaria G: Clinical, morphological, and ultrastructural aspects with the use of Er:YAG and Er,Cr:YSGG lasers in restorative dentistry. Gen. Dent. 2008 [cited 2024 Feb 7]; 56(7): 636–639. PubMed Abstract

[21] 21. Hickel R, Brüshaver K, Ilie N: Repair of restorations - Criteria for decision making and clinical recommendations. Dent. Mater. 2013 [cited 2024 Feb 7]; 29: 28–50. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text

[22] 22. Hannig C, Hahn P, Thiele PP, et al.: Influence of Different Repair Procedures on Bond Strength of Adhesive Filling Materials to Etched Enamel In Vitro. Oper. Dent. 2003 [cited 2024 Feb 7]; 28(6): 800–807. PubMed Abstract

[23] 23. Cavalcanti AN, De Lima AF, Peris AR, et al.: Effect of surface treatments and bonding agents on the bond strength of repaired composites. J. Esthet. Restor. Dent. 2007 Apr [cited 2024 Feb 7]; 19(2): 90–98. Publisher Full Text Reference Source

[24] 24. Kimyai S, Mohammadi N, Navimipour EJ, et al.: Comparison of the Effect of Three Mechanical Surface Treatments on the Repair Bond Strength of a Laboratory Composite. Photomed. Laser Surg. 2010 Oct 1 [cited 2024 Feb 7]; 28(S2): S-25–S-30. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text

Effect of different surface treatments on the repair bond strength between aged and new alkasite based restorative material

Abstract

Background

Methods

Results

Conclusion

Keywords

Revised Amendments from Version 1

Introduction

Methods

Surface preparation

Table 1. Description of the various surface preparation methods used in different groups.

Table 2. Description of the various materials and composition used in the study.

Specimen preparation

Measurement of repair bond strength

Statistical analysis

Results

Table 3. Comparison of repair bond strength values among the study groups.

Discussion

Conclusions

Data availability statement

Acknowledgements

References

Comments on this article Comments (0)

Open Peer Review

Comments on this article Comments (0)

Open Peer Review

Reviewer Status

Reviewer Reports

Comments on this article

Browse by related subjects

Competing Interests Policy

Stay Updated