Search

Despite the advancements in indirect monolithic restorations, technical complications may occur during function. To overcome this issues, intraoral repair using resin composite is a practical and low-cost procedure, being able to increase the restoration’s longevity. This review aimed to evaluate the need for repair and suggest a standardized repair protocol to the main indirect restorative materials. For this, studies were surveyed from PubMed with no language or date restriction, to investigate the scientific evidence of indirect monolithic restoration repair with direct resin composite. A classification to guide clinical decisions was made based on the FDI World Dental Federation criteria about defective indirect restorations considering esthetic and functional standards, along with the patient’s view, to decide when polishing, repairing or replacing a defective restoration. Based on 38 surveyed studies, different resin composite intraoral repair protocols, that included mechanical and chemical aspects, were defined depending on the substrate considering resin-based, glass-ceramic or zirconia restorations. The presented criteria and protocols were developed to guide the clinician’s decision-making process regarding defective indirect monolithic restorations, prolonging longevity and increasing clinical success.

Objective: To evaluate the effect of different surface treatments on the morphology, shear bond, and flexural fatigue strength of a repaired translucent zirconia. Methods: Monolithic disc-shaped specimens of translucent zirconia were prepared and ground to simulate repair areas. Four groups underwent different treatments: Air-MDP (air-abrasion with alumina particles and 10-MDP primer), Si-Sil (silica-coated alumina particles with MDP-containing silane), Si-MDP (silica coating with 10-MDP primer), and Uni adhe (universal adhesive). After roughness measurements and treatments, repairs were done using resin composite. Shear bond and flexural (n = 15) fatigue tests were performed. Surface topography, interfacial analysis, fractographic, and finite element analysis were conducted. Results: The zirconia roughness was similar between the groups, however, the surface topography was modified according to the surface treatments. Si-Sil generated higher and more stable bond strength values (20.69 MPa) between translucent zirconia and resin composite when compared to Uni adhe (15.75 MPa) considering the fatigue bond strength scenario, while it was similar to Si-MDP (17.70 MPa) and Air-MDP (18.97 MPa). Regarding the mechanical behavior, Si-Sil (680.83 MPa) also showed higher and significantly different fatigue strength when compared to Uni adhe (584.55 MPa), while both were similar to Si-MDP (634.22 MPa) and Air-MDP (641.86 MPa). Conclusion: The association of mechanical and chemical approaches is essential for long-term bond strength and optimized mechanical behavior, being air-abrasion protocols and the use of silane and/or MDP-based primers suitable for zirconia repair protocols. It was found that relying solely on a universal adhesive was not as effective as other options available. Clinical significance: The surface treatment of repair protocols affects translucent zirconia's morphology. To enhance fatigue behavior in repaired monolithic zirconia, air abrasion is crucial. Exclusive use of a universal adhesive is less effective than other choices. A primer containing silane/MDP holds the potential for stable bond strength and optimized mechanical performance.