Effect Of Surface Treatments And Bonding Agents On The Bond Strength Of Repaired Composites.

dc.creatorCavalcanti, Andrea Nóbrega
dc.creatorDe Lima, Adriano Fonseca
dc.creatorPeris, Alessandra Rezende
dc.creatorMitsui, Fabio Hiroyuki Ogata
dc.creatorMarchi, Giselle Maria
dc.date2007
dc.date2015-11-27T13:09:54Z
dc.date2015-11-27T13:09:54Z
dc.date.accessioned2018-03-29T01:04:30Z
dc.date.available2018-03-29T01:04:30Z
dc.identifierJournal Of Esthetic And Restorative Dentistry : Official Publication Of The American Academy Of Esthetic Dentistry ... [et Al.]. v. 19, n. 2, p. 90-8; discussion 99, 2007.
dc.identifier1496-4155
dc.identifier10.1111/j.1708-8240.2007.00073.x
dc.identifierhttp://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17374114
dc.identifierhttp://repositorio.unicamp.br/jspui/handle/REPOSIP/197210
dc.identifier17374114
dc.identifier.urihttp://repositorioslatinoamericanos.uchile.cl/handle/2250/1297443
dc.descriptionAn adequate repair procedure depends on high bond strength between the existing composite and the new composite. To evaluate the effect of surface treatments and bonding procedures on the bond strength of repairs performed 24 hours after composite polymerization. Composite specimens were stored in distilled water at 37 degrees C for 24 hours. Specimens were allocated into 12 groups (N=10) according to the combination of surface treatment (none, air abrasion, diamond bur) and bonding procedure (none, Single Bond after H(3)PO(4) cleansing, Clearfil SE Bond after H(3)PO(4) cleansing, Clearfil SE Bond without H(3)PO(4) cleansing). The ultimate tensile strength (UTS) of the composite was tested in nonrepaired specimens. Twenty-four hours after repair, specimens were sectioned into three slabs and trimmed to an hourglass shape (1 mm(2) area). Slabs were tested under tension and mean bond strengths analyzed with two-way analysis of variance/Tukey and Dunnett tests (alpha=5%). Two groups resulted in repair bond strengths similar to composite UTS: air abrasion combined with Clearfil SE Bond after H(3)PO(4) cleansing, and air abrasion combined with Clearfil SE Bond without H(3)PO(4) cleansing. Combinations of surface treatments and bonding procedures were not statistically different. When repair procedure was performed 24 hours after composite polymerization, different combinations of surface treatments and bonding procedures affected repair bond strength similarly. There was no statistical difference between the repair bond strength of groups air-abraded and bonded with the self-etching system and composite UTS. Only air abrasion associated with a self-etching system provided repair bond strength comparable to composite UTS.
dc.description19
dc.description90-8; discussion 99
dc.languageeng
dc.relationJournal Of Esthetic And Restorative Dentistry : Official Publication Of The American Academy Of Esthetic Dentistry ... [et Al.]
dc.relationJ Esthet Restor Dent
dc.rightsfechado
dc.rights
dc.sourcePubMed
dc.subjectAir Abrasion, Dental
dc.subjectComposite Resins
dc.subjectDental Bonding
dc.subjectDental Etching
dc.subjectDental Prosthesis Repair
dc.subjectDental Restoration, Permanent
dc.subjectDental Stress Analysis
dc.subjectPhase Transition
dc.subjectResin Cements
dc.subjectSurface Properties
dc.subjectTensile Strength
dc.subjectTooth Preparation
dc.titleEffect Of Surface Treatments And Bonding Agents On The Bond Strength Of Repaired Composites.
dc.typeArtículos de revistas


Este ítem pertenece a la siguiente institución