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

A Comparison of Microtensile Bond Strength, Film Thickness, and Microhardness of Photo-Polymerized Luting Composites. | LitMetric

A Comparison of Microtensile Bond Strength, Film Thickness, and Microhardness of Photo-Polymerized Luting Composites.

Materials (Basel)

Division of Dental Biomaterials, Clinic for Reconstructive Dentistry, Center of Dental Medicine, University of Zurich, 8032 Zurich, Switzerland.

Published: April 2022

The aim of this study was to evaluate the effect of CAD/CAM composite thickness on micro-tensile bond strength (µTBS), microhardness (HV), and film thickness (FT) of different luting composites. Composite blocks (6.8 mm × 6.8 mm) were divided into 12 groups according to: CAD/CAM thickness and luting composite. For each group, 21 rods (1 mm × 1 mm) were tested in tension at crosshead speed of 1 mm/min. Fracture modes were categorized as adhesive, mixed, and cohesive. Microhardness (n = 5/group) was assessed using microhardness tester. Film thickness (12-rods/group) was evaluated using a stereomicroscope (×40). Data were analyzed using the two-way ANOVA/Tukey’s HSD test (p = 0.05). Parameters “thickness”, “cement”, and “thickness x cement” showed significant difference on µTBS and HV (p < 0.05). At 2 mm, heated x-tra fil composite showed the highest µTBS (45.0 ± 8.5 MPa), while at 4 mm thickness, Grandio Flow revealed the lowest µTBS (33.3 ± 6.3 MPa). Adhesive, mixed, and cohesive failures were reported. The HV of all composites decreased when photo-polymerized through 4 mm thickness (p < 0.05). Regardless of CAD/CAM thickness, photo-polymerized composites can be successfully used for luting CAD/CAM composite.

Download full-text PDF

Source
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9102044PMC
http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/ma15093050DOI Listing

Publication Analysis

Top Keywords

film thickness
12
bond strength
8
thickness
8
luting composites
8
cad/cam composite
8
thickness luting
8
cad/cam thickness
8
adhesive mixed
8
mixed cohesive
8
composite
5

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!