You are in the accessibility menu

Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item: http://acervodigital.unesp.br/handle/11449/22845
Full metadata record
DC FieldValueLanguage
dc.contributor.authorValandro, Luiz F.-
dc.contributor.authorOzcan, Mutlu-
dc.contributor.authorAmaral, Regina-
dc.contributor.authorVanderlei, Aleska-
dc.contributor.authorBottino, Marco A.-
dc.date.accessioned2014-05-20T14:05:08Z-
dc.date.accessioned2016-10-25T17:10:36Z-
dc.date.available2014-05-20T14:05:08Z-
dc.date.available2016-10-25T17:10:36Z-
dc.date.issued2008-11-01-
dc.identifierhttp://dx.doi.org/10.4012/dmj.27.849-
dc.identifier.citationDental Materials Journal. Tokyo: Japanese Soc Dental Materials Devices, v. 27, n. 6, p. 849-855, 2008.-
dc.identifier.issn0287-4547-
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/11449/22845-
dc.identifier.urihttp://acervodigital.unesp.br/handle/11449/22845-
dc.description.abstractThis study tested the bond strength of a resin cement to a glass-infiltrated zirconia-alumina ceramic after three conditioning methods and using two test methods (shear-SBS versus microtensile-MTBS). Ceramic blocks for MTBS and ceramic disks for SBS were fabricated. Three surface conditioning (SC) methods were evaluated: (1) 110-mu m Al(2)O(3)+Silanization; (2) Chairside silica coating+silanization: (3) Laboratory silica coating+silanization. Following surface conditioning, the resin cement (Panavia F) was bonded to the conditioned ceramics. Although no statistically significant differences (p=0.1076) were seen between the test methods, results yielded with the different surface conditioning methods showed statistically significant differences (p<0.0001) (SC2=SC3>SC1.). As for the interaction between the factors, two-way ANOVA showed that it was not statistically significant (p=0.1443). MTBS test resulted in predominantly mixed failure (85%), but SBS test resulted in exclusively adhesive failure. on the effects of different surface conditioning methods, chairside and laboratory tribochemical silica coating followed by silanization showed higher bond strength results compared to those of aluminum oxide abrasion and silanization, independent of the test method employed.en
dc.format.extent849-855-
dc.language.isoeng-
dc.publisherJapanese Soc Dental Materials Devices-
dc.sourceWeb of Science-
dc.subjectMicrotensile testen
dc.subjectShear testen
dc.subjectZirconiaen
dc.titleEffect of testing methods on the bond strength of resin to zirconia-alumina ceramic: microtensile versus shear testen
dc.typeoutro-
dc.contributor.institutionUniv Groningen-
dc.contributor.institutionUniversidade Federal de Santa Maria (UFSM)-
dc.contributor.institutionUniversidade Estadual Paulista (UNESP)-
dc.description.affiliationUniv Groningen, Univ Med Ctr Groningen, Dept Dent & Dent Hyg, NL-9713 AV Groningen, Netherlands-
dc.description.affiliationUniversidade Federal de Santa Maria (UFSM), Div Prosthodront, Dept Restorat Dent, Sch Dent, BR-97119900 Santa Maria, RS, Brazil-
dc.description.affiliationSão Paulo State Univ, Dept Dent Mat & Prosthodont, Sao Jose Campos Dent Sch, Sao Jose Dos Campos, Brazil-
dc.description.affiliationUnespSão Paulo State Univ, Dept Dent Mat & Prosthodont, Sao Jose Campos Dent Sch, Sao Jose Dos Campos, Brazil-
dc.identifier.doi10.4012/dmj.27.849-
dc.identifier.wosWOS:000265298400014-
dc.rights.accessRightsAcesso aberto-
dc.relation.ispartofDental Materials Journal-
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.