Basit öğe kaydını göster

dc.contributor.authorTekbas-Atay, Meltem
dc.contributor.authorMumcu, Emre
dc.contributor.authorOezcan, Mutlu
dc.contributor.authorErdemir, Ugur
dc.contributor.authorOzsoy, Alev
dc.date.accessioned2021-03-06T09:09:32Z
dc.date.available2021-03-06T09:09:32Z
dc.date.issued2019
dc.identifier.citationMumcu E., Erdemir U., Ozsoy A., Tekbas-Atay M., Oezcan M., "Effect of surface conditioning methods on the microtensile bond strength of repair composite to indirect restorative materials", JOURNAL OF ADHESION SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY, cilt.33, ss.2369-2384, 2019
dc.identifier.issn0169-4243
dc.identifier.othervv_1032021
dc.identifier.otherav_e45d5915-1439-428b-a316-a58820b06696
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/20.500.12627/150273
dc.identifier.urihttps://doi.org/10.1080/01694243.2019.1640173
dc.description.abstractThis study evaluated the effect of surface conditioning methods on the microtensile bond strength (mu TBS) of a restorative composite to indirect restorative materials. Blocks (5 x 5 x 4 mm(3)) (N = 72) of (a) Zirconia (In-Ceram Zirconia, Vita) (ZR), (b) lithium disilicate glass ceramic (IPS Empress II, Ivoclar Vivadent) (LD), (c) Indirect resin composite (Gradia, GC) (GR) were fabricated (n = 24 per group) and divided randomly into three groups: 1-Control: no conditioning, 2-Silane coupling agent, 3-Hydrofluoric acid (9.5%) (HF)+silane. Each block was duplicated in resin composite. The adhesion surfaces were conditioned with airborne-particle abrasion (110 mu m Al2O3 particles). Half of the conditioned blocks received no bonding and the other half one coat of bonding (ED Primer II, Kuraray). Each conditioned block was bonded to a composite block with a resin luting agent (Panavia F2.0, Kuraray). The blocks were sectioned into 1 mm(2) microsticks and tested for microtensile bond strength (mu TBS) (0.5 mm/min) in a mu TBS testing machine. Failure types were evaluated under stereomicroscope and Scanning Electron Microscope (SEM). Data were analyzed using three-way ANOVA, Bonferroni corrected and independent sample t-tests (p < 0.05). Significant effect of the bonding (p < 0.001) and surface conditioning (p < 0.001) were observed in all groups. The highest mean bond strength values were obtained in the bonded, HF etched and silanized groups of ZR, LD and GR (12.4 +/- 2.9, 28.1 +/- 1.5 and 27.2 +/- 2 MPa, respectively). HF acid + silane increased the repair bond values in all materials. Majority of the failure types were adhesive for ZR group, whereas HF + silane conditioned LD and GR groups presented predominantly cohesive failures in the cement.
dc.language.isoeng
dc.subjectKimya Mühendisliği ve Teknolojisi
dc.subjectMühendislik ve Teknoloji
dc.subjectMEKANİK
dc.subjectMalzeme Bilimi
dc.subjectMALZEME BİLİMİ, MULTIDISCIPLINARY
dc.subjectMühendislik, Bilişim ve Teknoloji (ENG)
dc.subjectMühendislik
dc.subjectMÜHENDİSLİK, KİMYASAL
dc.titleEffect of surface conditioning methods on the microtensile bond strength of repair composite to indirect restorative materials
dc.typeMakale
dc.relation.journalJOURNAL OF ADHESION SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY
dc.contributor.departmentİstanbul Medipol Üniversitesi , ,
dc.identifier.volume33
dc.identifier.issue21
dc.identifier.startpage2369
dc.identifier.endpage2384
dc.contributor.firstauthorID265898


Bu öğenin dosyaları:

DosyalarBoyutBiçimGöster

Bu öğe ile ilişkili dosya yok.

Bu öğe aşağıdaki koleksiyon(lar)da görünmektedir.

Basit öğe kaydını göster