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

Microshear bond strength of resin cement to a zirconia-reinforced lithium silicate glass ceramic using different surface treatments. | LitMetric

Background: The purpose of this study was to evaluate the effect of different surface treatments on the microshear bond strength (μSBS) of resin cement to zirconia-reinforced lithium silicate ceramic and to compare it with lithium disilicate ceramic.

Materials And Methods: In this study, 80 specimens containing two glass ceramics of IPS e.max press and VITA SUPRINITY were prepared and categorized into four groups according to the surface treatments ( = 10) as Group 1 (C): no treatment (control); Group 2 (HF): etching with 9% hydrofluoric acid (HF) for 90 s followed by silane application; Group 3 (SPH): sandblasting with AlO particles (50 μm), etching with 35% phosphoric acid for 40 s followed by application of silane and adhesive (Clearfil liner bond F); and Group 4 (SB): sandblasting with AlO followed by silanization. Then, a resin cement (Panavia F2) was applied to the prepared ceramic surfaces. All samples were subjected to thermal aging (5000 cycles, 5-55). The μSBS test was evaluated and failure modes were recorded. Data were analyzed using the Shapiro-Wilk, two-way analysis of variance and Tukey's Honest Significant Difference tests ( < 0.05).

Results: IPS e.max press samples revealed significantly higher μSBS values compared to VITA SUPRINITY ( < 0.001), in whole surface treatments. The HF group showed the highest μSBS value, followed by the SPH and SB groups, respectively ( < 0.001). Adhesive failure was recorded as a predominant failure mode.

Conclusion: The adhesion performance of IPS e.max press was significantly higher than VITA SUPRINITY. The common surface treatment protocol including HF application followed by silanization was the most effective surface treatment for both glass ceramics.

Download full-text PDF

Source
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10300266PMC

Publication Analysis

Top Keywords

surface treatments
16
resin cement
12
ips emax
12
emax press
12
vita suprinity
12
microshear bond
8
bond strength
8
cement zirconia-reinforced
8
zirconia-reinforced lithium
8
lithium silicate
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!