Subasi, Meryem GulceAlp, Gulce2024-05-252024-05-252017162005-78062005-781410.4047/jap.2017.9.5.3642-s2.0-85033372393https://doi.org/10.4047/jap.2017.9.5.364https://hdl.handle.net/20.500.14517/508Cakmak, Gulce/0000-0003-1751-9207PURPOSE. To explore the influence of different surface conditionings on surface changes and the influence of surface treatments and aging on the bond strengths of composites to non-aged and aged resin nanoceramics. MATERIALS AND METHODS. Rectangular-shaped non-aged and aged (5000 thermocycles) resin nanoceramic specimens (Lava Ultimate) (n=63, each) were divided into 3 groups according to surface treatments (untreated, air abrasion, or silica coating) (n=21). The surface roughness was measured and scanning electron microscopy was used to examine one specimen from each group. Afterwards, the specimens were repaired with a composite resin (Filtek Z550) and half were sent for aging (5000 thermocycles, n=10, each). Shear bond strengths and failure types were evaluated. Roughness and bond strength were investigated by two-and three-way analysis of variance, respectively. The correlation between the roughness and bond strength was investigated by Pearson's correlation test. RESULTS. Surface-treated samples had higher roughness compared with the untreated specimens (P=.000). For the non-aged resin nanoceramic groups, aging was a significant factor for bond strength; for the aged resin nanoceramic groups, surface treatment and aging were significant factors. The failures were mostly adhesive after thermal cycling, except in the non-aged untreated group and the aged air-abraded group, which had mostly mixed failures. Roughness and bond strength were positively correlated (P=.003). CONCLUSION. Surface treatment is not required for the repair of non-aged resin nanoceramic; for the repair of aged resin nanoceramic restorations, air abrasion is recommended.eninfo:eu-repo/semantics/openAccessBond strengthRepairResin nanoceramicRoughnessSurface treatmentArticleQ3Q195364370WOS:00041560850000729142644