Barcellos, Daphne C. [UNESP]Santos, Vivian M. Miyazaki [UNESP]Niu, Li-NaPashley, David H.Tay, Franklin R.Pucci, Cesar R. [UNESP]2015-10-212015-10-212015-06-01International Journal Of Adhesion And Adhesives, v. 59, p. 1-6, 2015.0143-7496http://hdl.handle.net/11449/128919Objectives: This study investigated the repairs of resin composite restorations after using different surface treatments.Design: Eighty four truncated cones of Filtek Z350 were prepared and thermo-cycled (20,000 cycles). Surfaces were roughened with diamond bur and etched with 37% phosphoric acid. Those cones were divided into 7 groups (N=12): 1) Prime&Bond 2.1; 2) aluminum oxide sandblasting+Prime&Bond 2.1; 3) Er:YAG laser treatment+Prime&Bond 2.1; 4) 9.6% hydrofluoric acid for 2 min-Fsilane coupling agent.; 5) silane coupling agent; 6) auto-polymerized acrylic monomer+Prime&Bond 2.1; 7) Adper Scothbond SE. Teflon device was used to fabricate inverted truncated cones of repair composite over the surface-treated. The bonded specimens were stressed to failure under tension. The data were analyzed with oneway ANOVA and Tukey tests.Results: Mean repair strengths (SD, in MPa) were, Group-2: 18.8a; Group-1: 18.7a; Group-6: 13.4ab; Group-7: 9.5bc; Group-3: 7.5bcd; Group-4: 5.2cd; Group-5: 2.6d.Conclusions: The use of diamond bur and a conventional adhesive and the use of aluminum oxide sandblasting prior to adhesive provided a simple and cost-effective solutions to composite repair. Er:YAG laser, silane alone, 9.6% hydrofluoric acid plus silane or a self-etching adhesive results in inferior composite repair strengths. (C) 2015 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.1-6engComposite resin repairNanofilled composite resinLaserSilica coatingSilaneArtigo10.1016/j.ijadhadh.2015.01.008WOS:000353006100001Acesso restrito17540206528748500000-0003-4830-0400