Show simple item record

dc.contributor.authorBergoli, César Dalmolin
dc.contributor.authorde Carvalho, Rodrigo Furtado [UNESP]
dc.contributor.authorLuz, Julio Nogueira [UNESP]
dc.contributor.authorLuz, Murilo Souza
dc.contributor.authorMeincke, Débora Könzgen
dc.contributor.authorSaavedra, Guilherme de Siqueira [UNESP]
dc.date.accessioned2018-12-11T16:43:40Z
dc.date.available2018-12-11T16:43:40Z
dc.date.issued2016-01-01
dc.identifierhttp://dx.doi.org/10.3290/j.jad.a36152
dc.identifier.citationJournal of Adhesive Dentistry, v. 18, n. 4, p. 283-287, 2016.
dc.identifier.issn1757-9988
dc.identifier.issn1461-5185
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/11449/168933
dc.description.abstractPurpose: To evaluate the bond strength between composite resin and feldspathic ceramic following repair protocols with and without hydrofluoric acid and aging by thermocycling. Materials and Methods: Forty-eight glass feldspathic ceramic blocks (8 x 8 x 6 mm) were divided into three groups on the basis of their surface repair treatment: 1. 10% hydrofluoric acid + Signum Ceramic Primer I + Signum Ceramic Primer II (control group); 2. abrasive rubber tips + Signum Ceramic Primer I + Signum Ceramic Primer II (test group); 3. Signum Ceramic Primer I + Signum Ceramic Primer II (negative control group). The treated surface of each block was built up with composite and then sectioned to produce nontrimmed bars (adhesive area = 1 mm2). Half of the bars from each group were aged by 6000 cycles of 30-s immersions in water baths at 5°C and 55°C, with a transfer time of 2 s. The other bars were immediately subjected to microtensile bond strength testing. The mean bond strength for each block was then recorded and submitted to two-way ANOVA and Tukey's test (α = 0.05). Results: The aging protocol influenced the bond strength values of all groups (p = 0.000). The non-aged groups submitted to surface treatment protocols 1 (13.1 ± 2.5 MPa) and 2 (11.5 ± 5.1 MPa) presented the highest bond strength values. Conclusions: The interface bond strength of all groups was susceptible to aging. Surface treatment protocol 2, with abrasive rubber tips and no hydrofluoric acid, appeared to be the most promising option, as the resulting bond strength values were similar to those of the control group.en
dc.format.extent283-287
dc.language.isoeng
dc.relation.ispartofJournal of Adhesive Dentistry
dc.sourceScopus
dc.subjectCeramic surface treatment
dc.subjectFeldspathic repair
dc.subjectGlass ceramic
dc.titleCeramic repair without hydrofluoric aciden
dc.typeArtigo
dc.contributor.institutionFederal University of Pelotas
dc.contributor.institutionUniversidade Estadual Paulista (UNESP)
dc.description.affiliationSchool of Dentistry Federal University of Pelotas
dc.description.affiliationScience and Technology Institute Sao Paulo State University (UNESP) Sao Jose dos Campos
dc.description.affiliationUnespScience and Technology Institute Sao Paulo State University (UNESP) Sao Jose dos Campos
dc.identifier.doi10.3290/j.jad.a36152
dc.rights.accessRightsAcesso restrito
dc.identifier.scopus2-s2.0-84984782691
dc.relation.ispartofsjr0,839
Localize o texto completo

Files in this item

FilesSizeFormatView

There are no files associated with this item.

This item appears in the following Collection(s)

Show simple item record