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: 1034
Function: getPubMedXML

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 3152
Function: GetPubMedArticleOutput_2016

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

Moist vs over-dried etched dentin: FE-SEM/TEM and bond strength evaluation of resin-dentin interfaces produced by universal adhesives. | LitMetric

Moist vs over-dried etched dentin: FE-SEM/TEM and bond strength evaluation of resin-dentin interfaces produced by universal adhesives.

J Esthet Restor Dent

Department of Restorative Dental Sciences, Division of Operative Dentistry, University of Florida, Gainesville, Florida.

Published: April 2020

Objective: To evaluate the influence of the degree of dentin moisture on interfacial ultramorphology and bond strength (μTBS) of universal adhesives.

Materials And Methods: Futurabond U (FBU), Scotchbond Universal (SBU), Adhese Universal (ADU), and Prime&Bond active (PBA) were used. After acid-etching, moist or over-dried dentin surfaces were tested. Teeth were restored for scanning and transmission electron microscopy (n = 3) and μTBS evaluation (n = 5). μTBS results were analyzed by two-way ANOVA and Tukey.

Results: For moist dentin, a well-formed hybrid layer (HL) was observed. However, when applied to over-dried dentin, remarkable differences were observed. Defects, gaps, and reduced HL thickness were observed mainly for ADU and FBU. When applied to wet dentin, μTBS values were similar for all adhesives, except for FBU, which was significantly lower. When applied to over-dried dentin, PBA presented the highest μTBS values, followed by SBU, ADU, and FBU. ADU presented significantly lower μTBS when applied to over-dried dentin.

Conclusion: PBA, SBU, and FBU μTBS values were not sensitive to the degree of moisture. Even though application to over-dried dentin revealed defects, gaps and reduced HL thickness for SBU, ADU, and FBU, μTBS analysis only revealed a significant reduction for ADU.

Clinical Significance: Universal adhesives can be applied in either self-etching or etch-and-rinse mode. However, clinicians are not aware which universal adhesives should be strictly applied on a moist dentin for bonding in the etch-and-rinse mode.

Download full-text PDF

Source
http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/jerd.12537DOI Listing

Publication Analysis

Top Keywords

over-dried dentin
16
universal adhesives
12
applied over-dried
12
adu fbu
12
μtbs values
12
dentin
9
moist over-dried
8
bond strength
8
μtbs
8
moist dentin
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!