Effect of surface conditioning methods on the microtensile bond strength of repair composite to indirect restorative materials

dc.authoridTEKBAS ATAY, MELTEM/0000-0002-1762-830X
dc.authoridÖzcan, Mutlu/0000-0002-9623-6098
dc.authoridErdemir, Ugur/0000-0002-4673-8284
dc.authoridATAY, MELTEM TEKBAS/0000-0002-1762-830X
dc.authorwosidTEKBAS ATAY, MELTEM/W-7451-2018
dc.authorwosidÖzcan, Mutlu/B-2862-2013
dc.authorwosidErdemir, Ugur/ABH-2939-2021
dc.authorwosidATAY, MELTEM TEKBAS/F-1130-2018
dc.contributor.authorMumcu, Emre
dc.contributor.authorErdemir, Ugur
dc.contributor.authorOzsoy, Alev
dc.contributor.authorTekbas-Atay, Meltem
dc.contributor.authorOezcan, Mutlu
dc.date.accessioned2024-06-12T10:50:45Z
dc.date.available2024-06-12T10:50:45Z
dc.date.issued2019
dc.departmentTrakya Üniversitesien_US
dc.description.abstractThis study evaluated the effect of surface conditioning methods on the microtensile bond strength (mu TBS) of a restorative composite to indirect restorative materials. Blocks (5 x 5 x 4 mm(3)) (N = 72) of (a) Zirconia (In-Ceram Zirconia, Vita) (ZR), (b) lithium disilicate glass ceramic (IPS Empress II, Ivoclar Vivadent) (LD), (c) Indirect resin composite (Gradia, GC) (GR) were fabricated (n = 24 per group) and divided randomly into three groups: 1-Control: no conditioning, 2-Silane coupling agent, 3-Hydrofluoric acid (9.5%) (HF)+silane. Each block was duplicated in resin composite. The adhesion surfaces were conditioned with airborne-particle abrasion (110 mu m Al2O3 particles). Half of the conditioned blocks received no bonding and the other half one coat of bonding (ED Primer II, Kuraray). Each conditioned block was bonded to a composite block with a resin luting agent (Panavia F2.0, Kuraray). The blocks were sectioned into 1 mm(2) microsticks and tested for microtensile bond strength (mu TBS) (0.5 mm/min) in a mu TBS testing machine. Failure types were evaluated under stereomicroscope and Scanning Electron Microscope (SEM). Data were analyzed using three-way ANOVA, Bonferroni corrected and independent sample t-tests (p < 0.05). Significant effect of the bonding (p < 0.001) and surface conditioning (p < 0.001) were observed in all groups. The highest mean bond strength values were obtained in the bonded, HF etched and silanized groups of ZR, LD and GR (12.4 +/- 2.9, 28.1 +/- 1.5 and 27.2 +/- 2 MPa, respectively). HF acid + silane increased the repair bond values in all materials. Majority of the failure types were adhesive for ZR group, whereas HF + silane conditioned LD and GR groups presented predominantly cohesive failures in the cement.en_US
dc.identifier.doi10.1080/01694243.2019.1640173
dc.identifier.endpage2384en_US
dc.identifier.issn0169-4243
dc.identifier.issn1568-5616
dc.identifier.issue21en_US
dc.identifier.scopus2-s2.0-85071712032en_US
dc.identifier.scopusqualityQ2en_US
dc.identifier.startpage2369en_US
dc.identifier.urihttps://doi.org/10.1080/01694243.2019.1640173
dc.identifier.urihttps://hdl.handle.net/20.500.14551/18101
dc.identifier.volume33en_US
dc.identifier.wosWOS:000476337600001en_US
dc.identifier.wosqualityQ3en_US
dc.indekslendigikaynakWeb of Scienceen_US
dc.indekslendigikaynakScopusen_US
dc.language.isoenen_US
dc.publisherTaylor & Francis Ltden_US
dc.relation.ispartofJournal Of Adhesion Science And Technologyen_US
dc.relation.publicationcategoryMakale - Uluslararası Hakemli Dergi - Kurum Öğretim Elemanıen_US
dc.rightsinfo:eu-repo/semantics/openAccessen_US
dc.subjectAdhesionen_US
dc.subjectCeramicen_US
dc.subjectFeldspatic Porcelainen_US
dc.subjectMicrohybrid Compositeen_US
dc.subjectRepairen_US
dc.subjectSurface Conditioningen_US
dc.subjectZirconiaen_US
dc.subjectResin Cementen_US
dc.subjectLuting Cementen_US
dc.subjectFlexural Strengthen_US
dc.subjectVolume Lossen_US
dc.subjectZirconiaen_US
dc.subjectAgentsen_US
dc.subjectPorcelainen_US
dc.subjectAluminaen_US
dc.subjectSystemsen_US
dc.subjectDurabilityen_US
dc.titleEffect of surface conditioning methods on the microtensile bond strength of repair composite to indirect restorative materialsen_US
dc.typeArticleen_US

Dosyalar