A PHP Error was encountered

Severity: Warning

Message: file_get_contents(https://...@gmail.com&api_key=61f08fa0b96a73de8c900d749fcb997acc09&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

Effect of different ceramic surface treatments on resin microtensile bond strength. | LitMetric

Purpose: The objective of this study was to evaluate the effect of different surface treatments on the microtensile bond strength (micro-tbs) of composite bonded to hot-pressed ceramic. The null hypothesis tested was that neither of the surface treatments (silanization or fluoric acid etching) would produce greater bond strength of composite resin to the ceramic.

Materials And Methods: Four 7 x 7 x 5 mm hot-pressed ceramic blocks of IPS Empress 2 were fabricated and polished to 600 grit followed by sandblasting with 50 microm alumina. The ceramic blocks were then divided into four groups and submitted to the following surface treatments: Group 1: 9.5% hydrofluoric (HF) acid for 20 seconds and silane (S) for 3 minutes; Group 2: silane for 3 minutes; Group 3: 9.5% HF acid for 20 seconds; Group 4: no treatment. Scotchbond adhesive was applied to the treated ceramic surfaces and covered with Filtek Z250 composite resin. The composite-ceramic blocks were cut with an Isomet low speed diamond saw machine producing sticks (n = 25), which were loaded to failure under tension in an Instron Universal testing machine. The mean micro-tbs was analyzed with one-way ANOVA and Bonferroni "t" test.

Results: All specimens of Group 4 experienced adhesive failure during the cutting of the block and were eliminated. The mean micro-tbs and standard deviations (SD) in megaPascals were: Group 1 = 56.8 (+/-10.4), Group 2 = 44.8 (+/-11.6), Group 3 = 35.1 (+/-7.7). Statistical analysis showed that the bond strength was significantly affected by surface treatment (p < 0.0001). Group 1 (HF + S) had the highest micro-tbs, and Group 2 (S) had higher micro-tbs than Group 3 (HF). The mode of fracture of the specimens was examined using scanning electron microscopy (SEM), and all fractures occurred within the adhesion zone.

Conclusion: The results show that surface treatment is important for resin adhesion to ceramic and suggestthat silane treatment was the main factor responsible for resin bonding to ceramic.

Download full-text PDF

Source
http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1532-849X.2004.04007.xDOI Listing

Publication Analysis

Top Keywords

surface treatments
16
bond strength
16
group
11
microtensile bond
8
hot-pressed ceramic
8
composite resin
8
ceramic blocks
8
group 95%
8
acid seconds
8
silane minutes
8

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!