2017
DOI: 10.1016/j.fdj.2017.07.002
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Microtensile bond strength and scanning electron microscopic evaluation of zirconia bonded to dentin using two self-adhesive resin cements; effect of airborne abrasion and aging

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
5

Citation Types

0
10
0

Year Published

2018
2018
2023
2023

Publication Types

Select...
6
2

Relationship

0
8

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 12 publications
(10 citation statements)
references
References 26 publications
0
10
0
Order By: Relevance
“…Conversely, the application of mild acidic agents, such as 25% poly-acrylic acid (same dentin conditioner used for glass-ionomer cements), might remove the superficially loose bound fraction of the smear layer, thus improving adhesion (20) .…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Conversely, the application of mild acidic agents, such as 25% poly-acrylic acid (same dentin conditioner used for glass-ionomer cements), might remove the superficially loose bound fraction of the smear layer, thus improving adhesion (20) .…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Cohesive and mixed failure patterns are preferred clinically over adhesive failure patterns as they are usually associated with higher bond strength values than adhesive failure patterns. [35,36] Limitations of this study could be that corrosive components of the oral environment plus biomechanical and chemical stresses could not be replicated in this invitro study. Therefore, further long-term controlled clinical studies should be conducted to support or reject the results of this invitro study.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…This in vitro study aimed to evaluate the effect of two different polymer-based CAD/CAM materials, their different surface pre-treatments, and use of different resin cements on the µTBS of adhesively bonded CAD/ CAM onlays to dentin. The µTBS test was chosen as it allows a more uniform and homogeneous stress distribution compared to that of the conventional shear test, and it enables recognition of the weakest part of the adhesive complex based on the location of the failure 13,18) . Regarding the effects of different CAD/CAM materials on the µTBS, significant differences between LVU and CS were found (Table 2); thus, this study's first null hypothesis was rejected.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%