181 resultados para Pair bond


Relevância:

20.00% 20.00%

Publicador:

Resumo:

The limitation of photoactivation of dual-polymerized resin cements along the margins of metal restorations may adversely affect the mechanical properties of these cements, thus impairing the retention of restorations. The aim of this study was to assess the bond strength of cast metal crowns cemented with three dual-polymerized resin cements, using a chemically-activated resin cement and zinc phosphate as controls. Fifty nickel-chromium alloy crowns were cast and randomly assigned to five groups of equal size. Castings were cemented on their corresponding metal dies with one of the tested luting agents: Scotchbond Resin Cement, Enforce and Panavia F (dual-polymerized resin cements), Cement-It (chemically-activated resin cement) and Zinc Phosphate Cement (zinc phosphate cement). Specimens were stored in distilled water at 37 degreesC for 24 h and then loaded in tension until failure. Panavia F and Zinc Phosphate Cement provided the highest and lowest bond strength means, respectively. Scotchbond Resin Cement, Enforce and Cement-It cements exhibited similar intermediate values, but with statistically significant difference compared to the other materials (P < 0.05). Even with the restriction or absence of light activation, all tested dual-polymerized resin cements produced significantly higher bond strength than did the zinc phosphate cement and yielded similar or better results than the chemically activated cement. It should be pointed out that the findings of this study relate to a test scenario which does not mimic clinical circumstances and that further work is required to identify the clinical significance of the reported tensile bond strength differences between the different luting materials.

Relevância:

20.00% 20.00%

Publicador:

Resumo:

Statement of problem. The success of metal-ceramic restorations is influenced by the compatibility between base metal alloys and porcelains. Although porcelain manufacturers recommend their own metal systems as the most compatible for fabricating metal-ceramic prostheses, a number of alloys have been used.Purpose. This study evaluated the shear bond strength between a porcelain system and 4 alternative alloys.Material and methods. Two Ni-Cr alloys: 4 ALL and Wiron 99, and 2 Co-Cr alloys: IPS d.SIGN 20 and Argeloy NP were selected for this study. The porcelain (IPS d.Sign porcelain system) portion of the cylindrical inetal-ceramic specimens was 4 mm thick and 4 mm high; the metal portion was machined to 4 x 4 mm, with a base that was 5 nun thick and 1 mm high. Forty-four specimens were prepared (n=11). Ten specimens from each group were subjected to a shear load oil a universal testing machine using a 1 min/min crosshead speed. One specimen from each group was observed with a scanning electron microscope. Stress at failure (MPa) was determined. The data were analyzed with a 1-way analysis of variance (alpha=.05).Results. The groups, all including IPS d.Sign porcelain, presented the following mean bond strengths (+/-SD) in MPa: 4 ALL, 54.0 +/- 20.0; Wiron, 63.0 +/- 13.5; IPS d.SIGN 20, 71.7 +/- 19.2; Argeloy NP, 55.2 +/- 13.5. No significant differences were found among the shear bond strength values for the metal-ceramic specimens tested.Conclusion. None of the base metal alloys studied demonstrated superior bond strength to the porcelain tested.

Relevância:

20.00% 20.00%

Publicador:

Resumo:

Purpose: To determine the influence of different dentin treatments on the microtensile bond strengths of adhesive resins to dentin. Methods: Fifteen human molars were ground to 600-grit to obtain flat root-dentin surfaces. Five different dentin treatments were evaluated: Group 1 - 10% phosphoric acid for 30 seconds; Group 2 - 37% phosphoric acid for 15 seconds; Group 3 - air-abrasion for 10 seconds followed by 10% phosphoric acid for 30 seconds; Group 4 - air-abasion for 10 seconds followed by 37% phosphoric acid for 15 seconds. The dental adhesive (OptiBond Solo Plus) was applied according to manufacturer's instructions and followed by composite (Z100) application to provide sufficient bulk for microtensile bond testing. All samples were placed in distilled water for 24 hours at 37degreesC, thermocycled for 500 cycles in distilled water at 10degreesC and 50degreesC, and serially sliced perpendicular to the adhesive surface and subjected to tensile forces (0.5 mm/minute). Additional samples were prepared for SEM to observe the adhesive interface. Results: Group 2 exhibited significantly (P< 0.05) lower bond strength values than all other treatments. The bond strengths of the different conditions were (in MPa): Group 1: 43.0 +/- 16.1; Group 2: 29.2 +/- 8.3; Group 3: 48.1 +/- 14.2; Group 4: 41.0 +/- 9.3. The dentin treated with phosphoric acid 37% for 15 seconds showed the lowest values of microtensile bond strength. The results obtained with Groups 1, 3 and 4 were statistically similar.

Relevância:

20.00% 20.00%

Publicador:

Resumo:

Statement of the Problem: the ceramic composition and surface microstructure of all-ceramic restorations are important components of an effective bonding substrate. Hydrofluoric acid and sandblasting are well-known procedures for surface treatment; however, surface treatment for high alumina-containing and lithium disilicate ceramics have not been fully investigated.Purpose: This in vitro study evaluated the tensile bond strength of resin cement to two types of ceramic systems with different surface treatments.Methods and Materials: Thirty specimens of each ceramic system were made according to the manufacturer's instructions and embedded in polyester resin. Specimens of In-Ceram Alumina [1] and IPS Empress 2 [E] were distributed to three groups with differing surface treatments (n=10): sandblasting with 50 jam aluminum oxide (APA); sandblasting with 110 pm aluminum oxide modified with silica particles (ROCATEC System-RS); a combination of sandblasting with APA and 10% hydrofluoric acid etching (HA) for two minutes on In-Ceram and for 20 seconds for IPS Empress 2. After the respective surface treatments, all the specimens were silanated, and Rely-X resin cement was injected onto the ceramic surface and light polymerized. The specimens were stored in distilled water at 37 degrees C for 24 hours and thermally cycled 1,100 times (5 degrees C/55 degrees C). The tensile bond strength test was performed in a universal testing machine at a 0.5 mm/minute crosshead speed.Results: the mean bond strength values (AWa) for IPS Empress 2 were 12.01 +/- 5.93 (EAPA), 10.34 +/- 1.77 (ERS) and 14.49 +/- 3.04 (EHA). The mean bond strength values for In-Ceram Alumina were 9.87 +/- 2.40 JAPA) and 20.40 +/- 6.27 (IRS). All In-Ceram specimens treated with 10% hydrofluoric acid failed during thermal cycling.Conclusion: the Rocatec system was the most effective surface treatment for In-Ceram Alumina ceramics; whereas, the combination of aluminum oxide sandblasting and hydrofluoric acid etching for 20 seconds worked more effectively for Empress 2 ceramics.

Relevância:

20.00% 20.00%

Publicador:

Resumo:

This study evaluated the effect of mechanical cycling on the bond strength of fiber posts bonded to root dentin. The hypotheses examined were that bond strength is not changed after fatigue testing and bond strength does not present vast variations according to the type of fiber post. Sixty crownless, single-rooted human teeth were endodontically treated, with the space prepared at 12 mm. Thirty specimens received a quartz fiber post (Q-FRC (DT Light-Post), and the remaining 30 specimens received a glass fiber post (G-FRC) (FRC Postec Plus). All the posts were resin luted (All Bond+Duolink), and each specimen was embedded in a cylinder with epoxy resin. The specimens were divided into six groups: G1-Q-FRC+no cycling, G2- Q-FRC+20,000 cycles (load: 50N, angle of 45 degrees; frequency: 8Hz); G3- Q-FRC+2,000,000 cycles; G4- G-FRC+no cycling; G5- G-FRC+20,000 cycles; G6- GFRC+2,000,000 cycles. The specimens were cut perpendicular to their long axis, forming 2-mm thick disc-samples, which were submitted to the push-out test. ANOVA (alpha=.05) revealed that: (a) QFRC (7.1 +/- 2.2MPa) and G-FRC (6.9 +/- 2.1MPa) were statistically similar (p=0.665); (b) the no cycling groups (7.0 +/- 2.4MPa), 20,000 cycles groups (7.0 +/- 2.1MPa) and 2,000,000 cycles groups (7.0 +/- 2.0MPa) were statistically similar (p=0.996). It concluded that mechanical cycling did not affect the bond strength of two fiber posts bonded to dentin.

Relevância:

20.00% 20.00%

Publicador:

Resumo:

Objective: To evaluate the influence of different cross-head speeds on shear bond strength test on the dentin surface.Methods: One hundred and twenty extracted bovine incisors were embedded in polystyrene resin. The specimens were prepared by wet grinding with 320-, 400- and 600-grit Al2O3 paper exposing dentin. After the application of the adhesive system Single Bond (3M) to etched dentin, the composite resin Z-100 (3M) was applied and light cured. The specimens were randomly assigned to four groups (n = 30). The shear bond strength tests were performed with an EMIC DL 500 universal testing machine at four different cross-head speeds: 0.50 (A); 0.75 (B); 1.00 (C); and 5.00 mm/min (D).Results: the mean values of shear bond strength in MPa (SD) were: A, 11.78 (3.91); B, 11.82 (4.78); C, 16.32 (6.45); D, 15.46 (5.94). The data were analyzed with one-way ANOVA and Tukey's test (alpha = 0.05). The results indicated that A = B < C = D. The fracture pattern was evaluated by visual analysis in a stereomicroscope (25 x). The percentage of fractures that occurred at the adhesive interface were: A, 92.5%; B, 91.6%; C, 70.0%; D, 47.0%. The Student's t-test to percentages ( = 0.05) indicated that there were no significant differences among A, B and C; A and B differed from D, and there was no significant difference between C and D.Significance: Different cross-head speeds may influence the shear bond strength and the fracture pattern in dentin substrate. Shear bond strength using cross-head speeds of 0.50 and 0.75 mm/min should be preferred. (C) 2001 Academy of Dental Materials. published by Elsevier B.V. Ltd. All rights reserved.