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

Effect of Surface Treatment and Resin Cement on the Bond Strength of an Advanced Lithium Disilicate. | LitMetric

Objectives:  The aim of the study was to evaluate the effect of surface treatment and resin cement on the bond strength of conventional and advanced lithium disilicates (ALDs).

Materials And Methods:  Ceramic slices (2 × 13 × 15 mm) of conventional lithium disilicate (LD) (IPS e.max CAD) and ALD (CEREC Tessera) were sectioned, polished, and divided into 16 groups ( = 10) according to the factors: ceramic, surface treatment, and resin cement (Panavia V5 and Variolink Esthetic DC). Surface treatments consisted of hydrofluoric acid 4.9% etching for 20 seconds () or 30 seconds (), self-etching ceramic primer (), and sandblasting (). Then, a resin cement cylinder (Ø = 2.5 mm) was manufactured on each specimen's surface. The specimens were then submitted to a shear bond strength (SBS) test. Surface roughness was evaluated through a contact profilometer, and surface morphology was evaluated under scanning electron microscopy for qualitative analysis.

Statistical Analysis:  Two-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) was used to analyze the data of SBS and surface roughness. For bond strength, the effects of surface treatment, resin cement, and the interaction were analyzed for each ceramic. For roughness, analyzed factors include ceramic and surface treatment.

Results:  ANOVA revealed that ceramic ( = 0.047) and surface treatment ( < 0.001) factors affected the bond strength, while the cements performed similarly. Both materials showed adequate bond strength (ALD 19.1 ± 7.7 MPa; LD 17.1 ± 7.9 MPa). protocol showed the lowest mean value (9.6 ± 2.9 MPa) compared with (22.0 ± 7.1 MPa), (21.7 ± 7.4 MPa), and (19.3 ± 6.0 MPa).

Conclusion:  For both ceramics, the highest performance was obtained after applying Se and Hf20 or Hf30. Therefore, longer etching time is unnecessary. Sb protocol must be avoided.

Download full-text PDF

Source
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11290925PMC
http://dx.doi.org/10.1055/s-0043-1776358DOI Listing

Publication Analysis

Top Keywords

surface treatment
20
resin cement
20
treatment resin
16
bond strength
16
surface
11
cement bond
8
advanced lithium
8
lithium disilicate
8
ceramic surface
8
surface roughness
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!