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

Role of adhesive systems on the luting interface's thickness of ceramic laminate veneers. | LitMetric

Role of adhesive systems on the luting interface's thickness of ceramic laminate veneers.

Braz Oral Res

Universidade Estadual Paulista - Unesp, Araçatuba School of Dentistry, Department of Dental Materials and Prosthodontics, Araçatuba, SP, Brazil.

Published: June 2020

This in vitro study aimed to evaluate the effects of different luting protocols on the thickness of luting interface of ceramic laminate veneers. Thirty-six lithium disilicate blocks (7 × 8 × 0.6 mm) were cemented onto bovine enamel. They were divided into 6 groups based on the luting protocol (no previous photoactivation of the dental adhesive; previous activation of the dental adhesive only on enamel surface; and previous photoactivation of the dental adhesive on both the enamel surface and inner surface of ceramic laminate) and the luting materials used (Single Bond Universal/RelyX Veneer and Tetric N Bond/Variolink Veneer). The luting interface thickness of ceramic laminate veneers was evaluated using a laser scanning confocal microscope (n = 6). The luting interface measurements were analyzed using 2-way ANOVA and the Tukey least significant difference test (α = 0.05). Prior activation of the adhesive on the dental enamel and inside the ceramic laminate exhibited higher luting interface thickness than that with no prior photoactivation of both luting materials (p < 0.05). Specimens cemented with Tetric N Bond/Variolink Veneer, submitted for prior photoactivation of the adhesive on the dental enamel and on both dental enamel and inner surface of ceramic, exhibited lower luting interface thickness than those luted with Single Bond Universal/RelyX Veneer (p < 0.05). The prior photoactivation of dental adhesives influenced the thickness of luting interface in laminate restorations. Tetric N Bond/Variolink Veneer yielded more satisfactory results than Single Bond Universal/RelyX Veneer when the adhesive was light activated.

Download full-text PDF

Source
http://dx.doi.org/10.1590/1807-3107bor-2020.vol34.0063DOI Listing

Publication Analysis

Top Keywords

luting interface
24
ceramic laminate
20
laminate veneers
12
photoactivation dental
12
dental adhesive
12
single bond
12
bond universal/relyx
12
universal/relyx veneer
12
tetric bond/variolink
12
bond/variolink veneer
12

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!