You are in the accessibility menu

Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item: http://acervodigital.unesp.br/handle/11449/70070
Full metadata record
DC FieldValueLanguage
dc.contributor.authorde Melo, Renata Marques-
dc.contributor.authorValandro, Luiz Felipe-
dc.contributor.authorBottino, Marco Antonio-
dc.date.accessioned2014-05-27T11:22:41Z-
dc.date.accessioned2016-10-25T18:24:43Z-
dc.date.available2014-05-27T11:22:41Z-
dc.date.available2016-10-25T18:24:43Z-
dc.date.issued2007-12-01-
dc.identifierhttp://dx.doi.org/10.1590/S0103-64402007000400008-
dc.identifier.citationBrazilian Dental Journal, v. 18, n. 4, p. 314-319, 2007.-
dc.identifier.issn0103-6440-
dc.identifier.issn1806-4760-
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/11449/70070-
dc.identifier.urihttp://acervodigital.unesp.br/handle/11449/70070-
dc.description.abstractThe purpose of this study was to evaluate the microtensile bond strength of a repair composite resin to a leucite-reinforced feldspathic ceramic (Omega 900, VITA) submitted to two surface conditionings methods: 1) etching with hydrofluoric acid + silane application or 2) tribochemical silica coating. The null hypothesis is that both surface treatments can generate similar bond strengths. Ten ceramic blocks (6x6x6 mm) were fabricated and randomly assigned to 2 groups (n=5), according to the conditioning method: G1- 10% hydrofluoric acid application for 2 min plus rinsing and drying, followed by silane application for 30 s; G2- airborne particle abrasion with 30 μm silica oxide particles (CoJet-Sand) for 20 s using a chairside air-abrasion device (CoJet System), followed by silane application for 5 min. Single Bond adhesive system was applied to the surfaces and light cured (40 s). Z-250 composite resin was placed incrementally on the treated ceramic surface to build a 6x6x6 mm block. Bar specimens with an adhesive area of approximately 1 ± 0.1 mm2 were obtained from the composite-ceramic blocks (6 per block and 30 per group) for microtensile testing. No statistically significant difference was observed between G1 (10.19 ± 3.1 MPa) and G2 (10.17 ± 3.1 MPa) (p=0.982) (Student's t test; á = 0.05). The null hypothesis was, therefore, accepted. In conclusion, both surface conditioning methods provided similar microtensile bond strengths between the repair composite resin and the ceramic. Further studies using long-term aging procedures should be conducted.en
dc.format.extent314-319-
dc.language.isoeng-
dc.sourceScopus-
dc.subjectBond strength-
dc.subjectCeramic-
dc.subjectRepair composite-
dc.subjectSurface treatment-
dc.subjectaluminum oxide-
dc.subjectaluminum silicate-
dc.subjectbiomaterial-
dc.subjectbiomedical and dental materials-
dc.subjectbisphenol A bis(2 hydroxypropyl) ether dimethacrylate-
dc.subjectFiltek Z250-
dc.subjecthydrofluoric acid-
dc.subjectleucite-
dc.subjectOmega Dental Ceramic-
dc.subjectpotassium derivative-
dc.subjectresin-
dc.subjectresin cement-
dc.subjectsilane derivative-
dc.subjectsilicon dioxide-
dc.subjectsingle bond-
dc.subjectunclassified drug-
dc.subjectchemistry-
dc.subjectclinical trial-
dc.subjectcomparative study-
dc.subjectcontrolled clinical trial-
dc.subjectcontrolled study-
dc.subjectdental acid etching-
dc.subjectdental bonding-
dc.subjectdental etching-
dc.subjectfeldspar-
dc.subjecthuman-
dc.subjectmaterials testing-
dc.subjectmechanical stress-
dc.subjectmethodology-
dc.subjectrandomized controlled trial-
dc.subjecttensile strength-
dc.subjecttooth prosthesis-
dc.subjectAcid Etching, Dental-
dc.subjectAluminum Oxide-
dc.subjectAluminum Silicates-
dc.subjectBisphenol A-Glycidyl Methacrylate-
dc.subjectCoated Materials, Biocompatible-
dc.subjectComposite Resins-
dc.subjectDental Bonding-
dc.subjectDental Etching-
dc.subjectDental Materials-
dc.subjectDental Porcelain-
dc.subjectDental Prosthesis Repair-
dc.subjectHumans-
dc.subjectHydrofluoric Acid-
dc.subjectMaterials Testing-
dc.subjectPotassium Compounds-
dc.subjectResin Cements-
dc.subjectSilanes-
dc.subjectSilicon Dioxide-
dc.subjectStress, Mechanical-
dc.subjectTensile Strength-
dc.titleMicrotensile bond strength of a repair composite to leucite-reinforced feldspathic ceramicen
dc.typeoutro-
dc.contributor.institutionUniversidade Estadual Paulista (UNESP)-
dc.contributor.institutionFederal University of Santa Maria-
dc.description.affiliationDepartment of Dental Materials and Prosthodontics School of Dentistry of São José dos Campos São Paulo State University, São José dos Campos, SP-
dc.description.affiliationSchool of Dentistry of São José dos Campos São Paulo State University, São José dos Campos, SP-
dc.description.affiliationDepartment of Restorative Dentistry School of Dentistry Federal University of Santa Maria, Santa Maria, RS-
dc.description.affiliationUnespDepartment of Dental Materials and Prosthodontics School of Dentistry of São José dos Campos São Paulo State University, São José dos Campos, SP-
dc.description.affiliationUnespSchool of Dentistry of São José dos Campos São Paulo State University, São José dos Campos, SP-
dc.identifier.doi10.1590/S0103-64402007000400008-
dc.identifier.scieloS0103-64402007000400008-
dc.rights.accessRightsAcesso aberto-
dc.identifier.file2-s2.0-61449562199.pdf-
dc.relation.ispartofBrazilian Dental Journal-
dc.identifier.scopus2-s2.0-61449562199-
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.