A PHP Error was encountered

Severity: Warning

Message: file_get_contents(https://...@pubfacts.com&api_key=b8daa3ad693db53b1410957c26c9a51b4908&a=1): Failed to open stream: HTTP request failed! HTTP/1.1 429 Too Many Requests

Filename: helpers/my_audit_helper.php

Line Number: 176

Backtrace:

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 176
Function: file_get_contents

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 250
Function: simplexml_load_file_from_url

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 3122
Function: getPubMedXML

File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 575
Function: pubMedSearch_Global

File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 489
Function: pubMedGetRelatedKeyword

File: /var/www/html/index.php
Line: 316
Function: require_once

Analysis of sealing vs tensile bond strength of eight adhesive restorative material systems. | LitMetric

Analysis of sealing vs tensile bond strength of eight adhesive restorative material systems.

J Adhes Dent

Restorative Dentistry Department, Faculty of Odontology, Complutense University, Madrid, Spain.

Published: June 2001

Purpose: Using a simulated perfusion system, the intent was to determine: 1) the sealing ability of eight restorative materials (five composite resins and three compomers) used together with their corresponding dentin bonding systems, 2) their tensile bond strength, and 3) the correlation (if any) between both parameters.

Materials And Methods: Permeability in crown segments from sound human third molars (n = 140) subjected to simulated perfusion (32 cm of distilled water) was measured before and after restoring with each material, and the percentage of decrease in permeability (PPD) was recorded. Specimens were later subjected to tensile tests to determine the tensile bond strength (TBS) of the interface. Finally, parameters were analyzed for correlation.

Results: For the eight adhesive systems, the percentage of reduction in permeability was relatively high [mean in %, (SD)]: F2000 93.6 (5.7), SB1 88.6 (11.3), SSC 86.0 (5.7), PB20 81.1 (15.9), COM 77.5 (10.8), OPTS 75.3 (20.6), DYR 73.7 (12.7), SSPR 65.5 (19.8). TBS values were relatively low [mean (SD)], in MPa: F2000 1.8 (0.7), SB1 4.9 (1.4), SSC 2.6 (1.4), PB20 4.3 (1.2), COM 2.4 (1.1), OPTS 4.5 (1.7), DYR 1.6 (0.6), SSPR 4.2 (1.5). We could not demonstrate any statistically significant correlation between both parameters for these results (maximum significance [F2000]: r = 0.39, p = 0.206).

Conclusion: No material completely ceased to filtrate through the interface. The low TBS values were probably due to the large size of adhesive areas. No significant correlation was found between PPD and TBS for the materials tested. There was a statistically significant relationship (r2 = 0.063, p = 0.018) between TBS and TBA (total bonded area), described by the equation TBS = 5.9 - 0.03.TBA.

Download full-text PDF

Source

Publication Analysis

Top Keywords

tensile bond
12
bond strength
12
simulated perfusion
8
[mean sd]
8
tbs values
8
tbs
6
analysis sealing
4
tensile
4
sealing tensile
4
strength adhesive
4

Similar Publications

Want AI Summaries of new PubMed Abstracts delivered to your In-box?

Enter search terms and have AI summaries delivered each week - change queries or unsubscribe any time!