Adhesion of conventional and self-adhesive resin cements to indirect resin composite using different surface conditioning methods

dc.authoridÖzcan, Mutlu/0000-0002-9623-6098
dc.authoridCilingir, Altug/0000-0002-0694-5772
dc.authorwosidCilingir, Aylin/ACM-9694-2022
dc.authorwosidÖzcan, Mutlu/B-2862-2013
dc.authorwosidGomec, Omer Yavuz/AAD-7767-2020
dc.authorwosidCilingir, Altug/N-2262-2018
dc.contributor.authorCilingir, Aylin
dc.contributor.authorBilhan, Hakan
dc.contributor.authorCilingir, Altug
dc.contributor.authorGomec, Yavuz
dc.contributor.authorOzcan, Mutlu
dc.date.accessioned2024-06-12T10:50:45Z
dc.date.available2024-06-12T10:50:45Z
dc.date.issued2017
dc.departmentTrakya Üniversitesien_US
dc.description.abstractThis study evaluated the adhesion of conventional and self-adhesive resin cements to indirect resin composite (IRC) using different surface conditioning methods. Cylindrical IRC specimens (N=192) were randomly assigned to four surface conditioning methods (n=8 per group): (a) Control group, (b) Hydrofluoric acid, (c) Tribochemical silica-coating, and (d) 50m Al2O3 air-abrasion. Specimen surfaces were finished using silicon carbide papers up to 600 grit under water irrigation, rinsed and dried. Direct composite blocks were bonded to IRC specimens using three conventional resin cements (Multilink, Panavia F2.0, and Resicem) and three self-adhesive resin cements (RelyX U100, Gcem, Speed Cem). Specimens were subjected to shear bond strength test in a Universal Testing Machine (0.5mm/min). Failure types were categorized as mixed, adhesive and cohesive. Data were analyzed using 2-way ANOVA and Tukey's tests. Two-parameter Weibull modulus, scale (m) and shape (0) were calculated. The bond strength results (MPa) were significantly affected by the surface conditioning method (p<0.0001) and cement type (p<0.001). For Panavia F2.0, Resicem, air-abrasion with 50m Al2O3 significantly increased the results (22.6 +/- 6.5, 26.2 +/- 6.5, respectively) compared to other conditioning methods (13.6 +/- 1.4-21.9 +/- 3.1) but for Multilink, hydrofluoric acid etching (20.5 +/- 3.5) showed significantly higher results (p<0.01). For the self-adhesive resin cements, air-abrasion with 50m Al2O3 significantly increased the results compared to other conditioning methods, except for RelyX U100 (p<0.05). After air-abrasion with Al2O3, Gcem, (11.64), RelyX U100 (9.05), and SpeedCem (8.29) presented higher Weilbul moduli. Exclusively cohesive failure in the IRC was observed with RelyX U100 and Speedcem after Al2O3 air-abrasion.en_US
dc.identifier.doi10.1080/01694243.2016.1215763
dc.identifier.endpage368en_US
dc.identifier.issn0169-4243
dc.identifier.issn1568-5616
dc.identifier.issue4en_US
dc.identifier.scopus2-s2.0-84979987812en_US
dc.identifier.scopusqualityQ2en_US
dc.identifier.startpage358en_US
dc.identifier.urihttps://doi.org/10.1080/01694243.2016.1215763
dc.identifier.urihttps://hdl.handle.net/20.500.14551/18102
dc.identifier.volume31en_US
dc.identifier.wosWOS:000387925700002en_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.subjectResin Cementsen_US
dc.subjectSelf-Adhesive Cementen_US
dc.subjectSurface Conditioningen_US
dc.subjectIndirect Resin Compositeen_US
dc.subjectTensile Bond Strengthen_US
dc.subjectLuting Cementsen_US
dc.subjectRestorative Materialsen_US
dc.subjectHybrid Resinen_US
dc.subjectAgentsen_US
dc.subjectDentinen_US
dc.subjectPerformanceen_US
dc.subjectCeramicsen_US
dc.subjectEnamelen_US
dc.subjectRepairen_US
dc.titleAdhesion of conventional and self-adhesive resin cements to indirect resin composite using different surface conditioning methodsen_US
dc.typeArticleen_US

Dosyalar