dc.contributorUniv Groningen, Univ Med Ctr Groningen
dc.contributorUniv Zurich
dc.contributorUniversidade Estadual Paulista (Unesp)
dc.date.accessioned2014-05-20T14:05:01Z
dc.date.accessioned2022-10-05T14:56:39Z
dc.date.available2014-05-20T14:05:01Z
dc.date.available2022-10-05T14:56:39Z
dc.date.created2014-05-20T14:05:01Z
dc.date.issued2011-12-01
dc.identifierJournal of Adhesive Dentistry. Hanover Park: Quintessence Publishing Co Inc, v. 13, n. 6, p. 569-577, 2011.
dc.identifier1461-5185
dc.identifierhttp://hdl.handle.net/11449/22800
dc.identifier10.3290/j.jad.a21742
dc.identifierWOS:000298334300008
dc.identifier.urihttp://repositorioslatinoamericanos.uchile.cl/handle/2250/3896372
dc.description.abstractPurpose: Existing composite restorations on teeth are often remade prior to the cementation of fixed dental prostheses. The aim of this study was to evaluate the effect of static and cyclic loading on ceramic laminate veneers adhered to aged resin composite restorations.Materials and Methods: Eighty sound maxillary incisors were collected and randomly divided into four groups: group 1: control group, no restorations; group 2: two Class III restorations; group 3: two Class IV restorations; group 4: complete composite substrate. Standard composite restorations were made using a microhybrid resin composite (Anterior Shine). Restored teeth were subjected to thermocycling (6000 cycles). Window preparations were made on the labial surface of the teeth for ceramic laminate fabrication (Empress II). Teeth were conditioned using an etch-and-rinse system. Existing composite restorations representing the aged composites were silica coated (CoJet) and silanized (ESPE-Sil). Ceramic laminates were cemented using a bis-GMA-based cement (Variolink Veneer). The specimens were randomly divided into two groups and were subjected to either static (groups 1a, 2a, 3a, 4a) or cyclic loading (groups 1b, 2b, 3b, 4b). Failure type and location after loading were classified. Data were analyzed using one-way ANOVA and Tukey's test.Results: Significantly higher fracture strength was obtained in group 4 (330 +/- 81 N) compared to the controls in group 1 (179 +/- 120 N) (one-way ANOVA, p < 0.05). Group lb survived a lower mean number of cyclic loads (672,820 cycles) than teeth of groups 2b to 4b (846x10(3) to 873x10(3) cycles). Failure type evaluation after the fracture test showed predominantly adhesive failures between dentin and cement, but after cyclic loading, more cohesive fractures in the ceramic were seen.Conclusion: Ceramic laminate veneers bonded to conditioned aged composite restorations provided favorable results. Surface conditioning of existing restorations may eliminate the necessity of removing aged composite restorations.
dc.languageeng
dc.publisherQuintessence Publishing Co Inc
dc.relationJournal of Adhesive Dentistry
dc.relation1.691
dc.relation0,839
dc.rightsAcesso restrito
dc.sourceWeb of Science
dc.subjectbiomimetics
dc.subjectcementation
dc.subjectceramic veneer
dc.subjectcyclic loading
dc.subjectesthetic dentistry
dc.subjectglass ceramic
dc.subjectlaminate
dc.subjectresin composite
dc.subjectsilica coating
dc.subjectsurface conditioning
dc.titleEffect of Static and Cyclic Loading on Ceramic Laminate Veneers Adhered to Teeth with and Without Aged Composite Restorations
dc.typeArtigo


Este ítem pertenece a la siguiente institución