The purpose of the present study was to compare the influence of post-surface treatment with silane, hydrogen peroxide, hydrofluoric acid or sandblasting and to investigate the effect of silane in combination of the other treatments on the microtensile bond strength between fiber posts and composite resins for core build-up. Thirty-two glass-fiber posts (FRC Postec Plus, Ivoclar Vivadent, Schaan, Liechtenstein) were divided into eight groups according to the different surface pretreatments performed: silane application (S); immersion in 28% hydrogen peroxide (HP); immersion in hydrogen peroxide followed by application of silane (HP-S); immersion in 4% hydrofluoric acid gel (HF); immersion in hydrofluoric acid gel followed by application of silane (HF-S); sandblasting with aluminum oxide particles (SB); sandblasting followed by application of silane (SB-S). In control group, no surface treatment was performed. The composite resin (Tetric Flow, Ivoclar Vivadent, Schaan, Liechtenstein) was applied onto the posts to produce the composite cylinder specimen. It was sectioned into sticks to measure the microtensile bond strength. The data was analyzed with one-way ANOVA and LSD test for post hoc comparison (p < 0.05). Post pretreatment with sandblasting enhanced the interfacial strength between the fiber posts and core materials. Moreover, sand-blasting followed by application of silane appears to be the most effective method that can improve the clinical performance of glass fiber posts.

The purpose of this study is to compare the shear bond strength of repaired composite resin with different bonding agents and evaluate the effect of bonding agents on composite repair strength. Forty composite specimens (Z-250) were prepared and aged for 1week by thermocycling between 5 and 55℃ with a dwell time of 30s. After air abrasion with 50 µm aluminum oxide, following different bonding agents were applied (n = 10); SB group: Scotchbond multipurpose adhesive (3 step Total-Etch system); SE group: Clearfil SE bond (2 step Self-Etch system); XP group: XP bond (2 step Total-Etch system); XE group: XenoIII (1 step Self-Etch system). After bonding procedure was completed, new composite resin (Z-250) was applied to the mold and cured. For control group, 10 specimens were prepared. Seven days after repair, shear bond strength was measured. Data was statistically analyzed using one-way ANOVA and Tukey's test (p < 0.05). The means and standard deviations of shear bond strength (MPa ± S.D.) per group were as follows: SB group: 17.06; SE group: 19.10; XP group: 14.44; XE group: 13.57; Control Group: 19.40. No significant difference found in each group. Within the limit of this study, it was concluded that the different type of bonding system was not affect on the shear bond strength of repaired composite resin.