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
Purpose: To evaluate the effect of two surface conditioning methods, namely conventional hydrofluoric acid vs self-etching primer, and the application of adhesive on the bond strength of resin cement to CAD/CAM glass-ceramics.
Materials And Methods: Blocks (N = 96) (12 x 10 x 2.5 mm) were manufactured, 24 for each tested ceramic type: lithium silicate ceramic (LS), polymer-infiltrated ceramic (PIC), leucite-reinforced feldspathic ceramic (FD), and lithium-disilicate glass-ceramic (LD). For bond strength testing, 64 blocks were randomly divided into 16 groups (4 blocks per group) according to the following factors: ceramic: 4 levels; etching: 2 levels (HFS: hydrofluoric acid + silane or Monobond Etch & Prime [MEP]); and adhesive application: 2 levels, with (signified as A) and without. Then for each group, 15 resin cement cylinders (AllCem Dual, FGM) were built up. All specimens were subjected to thermocycling (10,000 cycles) and to shear bonding strength testing (SBS) (100 kgf, 0.5 mm/min). Mean shear stresses (MPa) were statistically analyzed by three-way ANOVA, Tukey's test, and Weibull analysis.
Results: The mean bond strength of group PIC-HFS-A (28.45 ± 7.6 MPa) was significantly higher than that of groups LS-HFS-A (12.11 ± 2.7MPa) and FDHFSA (20.86 ± 2.0MPa). Group PIC-HFS bond strength (25.02 ± 6.5 MPa) was significantly higher only when compared to group LS-HFS (15.82 ± 4.4 MPa). The LS group presented lower SBS compared to all other groups. No significant differences were found between HFS and MEP surface treatments.
Conclusion: Surface treatment with MEP promotes adhesion similar to that of HFS. Additional application of adhesive after the surface treatments did not improve the bond strength.
Download full-text PDF |
Source |
---|---|
http://dx.doi.org/10.3290/j.jad.b3240691 | DOI Listing |
Enter search terms and have AI summaries delivered each week - change queries or unsubscribe any time!