You are in the accessibility menu

Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item: http://acervodigital.unesp.br/handle/11449/16406
Full metadata record
DC FieldValueLanguage
dc.contributor.authorLeles, C. R.-
dc.contributor.authorMachado, Ana Lucia-
dc.contributor.authorVergani, Carlos Eduardo-
dc.contributor.authorGiampaolo, E. T.-
dc.contributor.authorPavarina, Ana Claudia-
dc.date.accessioned2014-05-20T13:46:22Z-
dc.date.accessioned2016-10-25T17:00:08Z-
dc.date.available2014-05-20T13:46:22Z-
dc.date.available2016-10-25T17:00:08Z-
dc.date.issued2001-12-01-
dc.identifierhttp://dx.doi.org/10.1046/j.1365-2842.2001.00786.x-
dc.identifier.citationJournal of Oral Rehabilitation. Oxford: Blackwell Publishing Ltd, v. 28, n. 12, p. 1153-1157, 2001.-
dc.identifier.issn0305-182X-
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/11449/16406-
dc.identifier.urihttp://acervodigital.unesp.br/handle/11449/16406-
dc.description.abstractDirect relining of dentures made with hard chairside reline resins is faster than laboratory-processed reline systems and the patient is not without the prosthesis for the time necessary to perform the laboratory procedures. However, a weak bond between the autopolymerizing acrylic reline resins and the denture base material has been observed. This study evaluated the effect of six different surface treatments on the bond strength between a hard chairside reline acrylic resin and ia heat-cured acrylic resin. Specimens of the heat-cured acrylic resin were divided into seven groups. one of these groups remained intact. In the other groups, a 10-mm square section was removed from the centre of each specimen. The bonding surfaces were then treated with (i) methyl methacrylate monomer, (ii) isobutyl methacrylate monomer, (iii) chloroform, (iv) acetone, (v) experimental adhesive and (vi) no surface treatment-control group. Kooliner acrylic resin was packed,into the square sections and polymerized. The bonding strength was evaluated by a three-point loading test. The results were submitted to one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) followed by a Tukey multiple range test at a 5% level of significance. No significant difference was found between the surface treatment with Lucitone 550 monomer or chloroform, but both were stronger than the majority of the other groups. The bond strength provided by all the surface treatments was lower than that of the intact heat-cured resin.en
dc.format.extent1153-1157-
dc.language.isoeng-
dc.publisherBlackwell Publishing-
dc.sourceWeb of Science-
dc.subjectreline resinpt
dc.subjectbond strengthpt
dc.subjectdenture base resinpt
dc.subjectremovable prosthodonticspt
dc.titleBonding strength between a hard chairside reline resin and a denture base material as influenced by surface treatmenten
dc.typeoutro-
dc.contributor.institutionUniversidade Estadual Paulista (UNESP)-
dc.description.affiliationUNESP, Fac Odontol Araraquara, Dept Dent Mat & Prosthodont, Araraquara Dent Sch, São Paulo, Brazil-
dc.description.affiliationUnespUNESP, Fac Odontol Araraquara, Dept Dent Mat & Prosthodont, Araraquara Dent Sch, São Paulo, Brazil-
dc.identifier.doi10.1046/j.1365-2842.2001.00786.x-
dc.identifier.wosWOS:000173046100012-
dc.rights.accessRightsAcesso restrito-
dc.relation.ispartofJournal of Oral Rehabilitation-
Appears in Collections:Artigos, TCCs, Teses e Dissertações da Unesp

There are no files associated with this item.
 

Items in DSpace are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.