Effects of surface treatments on bond strength of glass-infiltrated ceramic
The purpose of this study was to evaluate the effects of various surface treatments on the bond strength at the In-Ceram/resin composite interface. Ninety-eight In-Ceram specimens were divided into seven groups and exposed to various surface treatments as follows: (A) control (B) saliva contaminatio...
Ausführliche Beschreibung
Gespeichert in:
| Autor*in: |
Lu, Y.-C. [verfasserIn] Tseng, H. [verfasserIn] Shih, Y.-H. [verfasserIn] |
|---|
| Format: |
E-Artikel |
|---|
| Erschienen: |
Oxford UK: Blackwell Science Ltd ; 2001 |
|---|
| Schlagwörter: |
|---|
| Umfang: |
Online-Ressource |
|---|
| Reproduktion: |
2008 ; Blackwell Publishing Journal Backfiles 1879-2005 |
|---|---|
| Übergeordnetes Werk: |
In: Journal of oral rehabilitation - Oxford [u.a.] : Wiley-Blackwell, 1974, 28(2001), 9, Seite 0 |
| Übergeordnetes Werk: |
volume:28 ; year:2001 ; number:9 ; pages:0 |
| Links: |
|---|
| DOI / URN: |
10.1111/j.1365-2842.2001.00735.x |
|---|
| Katalog-ID: |
NLEJ243049048 |
|---|
| LEADER | 01000caa a22002652 4500 | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| 001 | NLEJ243049048 | ||
| 003 | DE-627 | ||
| 005 | 20210707171810.0 | ||
| 007 | cr uuu---uuuuu | ||
| 008 | 120427s2001 xx |||||o 00| ||und c | ||
| 024 | 7 | |a 10.1111/j.1365-2842.2001.00735.x |2 doi | |
| 035 | |a (DE-627)NLEJ243049048 | ||
| 040 | |a DE-627 |b ger |c DE-627 |e rakwb | ||
| 100 | 1 | |a Lu, Y.-C. |e verfasserin |4 aut | |
| 245 | 1 | 0 | |a Effects of surface treatments on bond strength of glass-infiltrated ceramic |
| 264 | 1 | |a Oxford UK |b Blackwell Science Ltd |c 2001 | |
| 300 | |a Online-Ressource | ||
| 336 | |a nicht spezifiziert |b zzz |2 rdacontent | ||
| 337 | |a nicht spezifiziert |b z |2 rdamedia | ||
| 338 | |a nicht spezifiziert |b zu |2 rdacarrier | ||
| 520 | |a The purpose of this study was to evaluate the effects of various surface treatments on the bond strength at the In-Ceram/resin composite interface. Ninety-eight In-Ceram specimens were divided into seven groups and exposed to various surface treatments as follows: (A) control (B) saliva contamination (C) saliva contamination plus aluminum oxide sandblasting (D) glove powder contamination (E) glove powder contamination plus aluminum oxide sandblasting (F) rough aluminum oxide sandblasting and (G) excess glass infiltration. A resin composite cylinder was cemented to each In-Ceram specimen with Panavia 21 resin luting cement. Half of the cemented specimens in each group were stored in water for 24 h, and the other half were stored in water for 2 weeks and then were thermo-cycled for 2000 cycles. Shear bond strengths (SBS) of seven specimens in each subgroup were determined and analysed using analysis of variance (ANOVA) and Tukey HSD test as well as Student‘s t-test. Scanning electronic microscopy was used to identify the type of bond failure. Shear bond strength was significantly decreased by saliva and glove powder contaminations (P < 0·05). Sandblasting treatment did not improve the saliva-contaminated specimens. However, the glove powder plus sandblasting group showed no significant difference in SBS compared with the control group. There was no significant difference in SBS between the excess glass-infiltrating group and the control group. The SBS was significantly decreased by rough aluminum oxide sandblasting (P < 0·05). The SBS values of groups without thermocycling were significantly greater than those of groups with thermocycling (P < 0·05). There were no significant differences among SBS values of the seven groups with thermocycling. Combined cohesive and adhesive bond failures were seen in every group. Various surface treatments or contaminants may significantly influence the bond strength of In-Ceram restorative in clinical use. | ||
| 533 | |d 2008 |f Blackwell Publishing Journal Backfiles 1879-2005 |7 |2008|||||||||| | ||
| 650 | 4 | |a bond strength | |
| 700 | 1 | |a Tseng, H. |e verfasserin |4 aut | |
| 700 | 1 | |a Shih, Y.-H. |e verfasserin |4 aut | |
| 700 | 1 | |a Lee, S.-Y. |4 oth | |
| 773 | 0 | 8 | |i In |t Journal of oral rehabilitation |d Oxford [u.a.] : Wiley-Blackwell, 1974 |g 28(2001), 9, Seite 0 |h Online-Ressource |w (DE-627)NLEJ243927177 |w (DE-600)2007587-X |x 1365-2842 |7 nnns |
| 773 | 1 | 8 | |g volume:28 |g year:2001 |g number:9 |g pages:0 |
| 856 | 4 | 0 | |u http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2842.2001.00735.x |q text/html |x Verlag |z Deutschlandweit zugänglich |3 Volltext |
| 912 | |a GBV_USEFLAG_U | ||
| 912 | |a ZDB-1-DJB | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_NL_ARTICLE | ||
| 951 | |a AR | ||
| 952 | |d 28 |j 2001 |e 9 |h 0 | ||
| author_variant |
y c l ycl h t ht y h s yhs |
|---|---|
| matchkey_str |
article:13652842:2001----::fetosraeramnsnodteghflsi |
| hierarchy_sort_str |
2001 |
| publishDate |
2001 |
| allfields |
10.1111/j.1365-2842.2001.00735.x doi (DE-627)NLEJ243049048 DE-627 ger DE-627 rakwb Lu, Y.-C. verfasserin aut Effects of surface treatments on bond strength of glass-infiltrated ceramic Oxford UK Blackwell Science Ltd 2001 Online-Ressource nicht spezifiziert zzz rdacontent nicht spezifiziert z rdamedia nicht spezifiziert zu rdacarrier The purpose of this study was to evaluate the effects of various surface treatments on the bond strength at the In-Ceram/resin composite interface. Ninety-eight In-Ceram specimens were divided into seven groups and exposed to various surface treatments as follows: (A) control (B) saliva contamination (C) saliva contamination plus aluminum oxide sandblasting (D) glove powder contamination (E) glove powder contamination plus aluminum oxide sandblasting (F) rough aluminum oxide sandblasting and (G) excess glass infiltration. A resin composite cylinder was cemented to each In-Ceram specimen with Panavia 21 resin luting cement. Half of the cemented specimens in each group were stored in water for 24 h, and the other half were stored in water for 2 weeks and then were thermo-cycled for 2000 cycles. Shear bond strengths (SBS) of seven specimens in each subgroup were determined and analysed using analysis of variance (ANOVA) and Tukey HSD test as well as Student‘s t-test. Scanning electronic microscopy was used to identify the type of bond failure. Shear bond strength was significantly decreased by saliva and glove powder contaminations (P < 0·05). Sandblasting treatment did not improve the saliva-contaminated specimens. However, the glove powder plus sandblasting group showed no significant difference in SBS compared with the control group. There was no significant difference in SBS between the excess glass-infiltrating group and the control group. The SBS was significantly decreased by rough aluminum oxide sandblasting (P < 0·05). The SBS values of groups without thermocycling were significantly greater than those of groups with thermocycling (P < 0·05). There were no significant differences among SBS values of the seven groups with thermocycling. Combined cohesive and adhesive bond failures were seen in every group. Various surface treatments or contaminants may significantly influence the bond strength of In-Ceram restorative in clinical use. 2008 Blackwell Publishing Journal Backfiles 1879-2005 |2008|||||||||| bond strength Tseng, H. verfasserin aut Shih, Y.-H. verfasserin aut Lee, S.-Y. oth In Journal of oral rehabilitation Oxford [u.a.] : Wiley-Blackwell, 1974 28(2001), 9, Seite 0 Online-Ressource (DE-627)NLEJ243927177 (DE-600)2007587-X 1365-2842 nnns volume:28 year:2001 number:9 pages:0 http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2842.2001.00735.x text/html Verlag Deutschlandweit zugänglich Volltext GBV_USEFLAG_U ZDB-1-DJB GBV_NL_ARTICLE AR 28 2001 9 0 |
| spelling |
10.1111/j.1365-2842.2001.00735.x doi (DE-627)NLEJ243049048 DE-627 ger DE-627 rakwb Lu, Y.-C. verfasserin aut Effects of surface treatments on bond strength of glass-infiltrated ceramic Oxford UK Blackwell Science Ltd 2001 Online-Ressource nicht spezifiziert zzz rdacontent nicht spezifiziert z rdamedia nicht spezifiziert zu rdacarrier The purpose of this study was to evaluate the effects of various surface treatments on the bond strength at the In-Ceram/resin composite interface. Ninety-eight In-Ceram specimens were divided into seven groups and exposed to various surface treatments as follows: (A) control (B) saliva contamination (C) saliva contamination plus aluminum oxide sandblasting (D) glove powder contamination (E) glove powder contamination plus aluminum oxide sandblasting (F) rough aluminum oxide sandblasting and (G) excess glass infiltration. A resin composite cylinder was cemented to each In-Ceram specimen with Panavia 21 resin luting cement. Half of the cemented specimens in each group were stored in water for 24 h, and the other half were stored in water for 2 weeks and then were thermo-cycled for 2000 cycles. Shear bond strengths (SBS) of seven specimens in each subgroup were determined and analysed using analysis of variance (ANOVA) and Tukey HSD test as well as Student‘s t-test. Scanning electronic microscopy was used to identify the type of bond failure. Shear bond strength was significantly decreased by saliva and glove powder contaminations (P < 0·05). Sandblasting treatment did not improve the saliva-contaminated specimens. However, the glove powder plus sandblasting group showed no significant difference in SBS compared with the control group. There was no significant difference in SBS between the excess glass-infiltrating group and the control group. The SBS was significantly decreased by rough aluminum oxide sandblasting (P < 0·05). The SBS values of groups without thermocycling were significantly greater than those of groups with thermocycling (P < 0·05). There were no significant differences among SBS values of the seven groups with thermocycling. Combined cohesive and adhesive bond failures were seen in every group. Various surface treatments or contaminants may significantly influence the bond strength of In-Ceram restorative in clinical use. 2008 Blackwell Publishing Journal Backfiles 1879-2005 |2008|||||||||| bond strength Tseng, H. verfasserin aut Shih, Y.-H. verfasserin aut Lee, S.-Y. oth In Journal of oral rehabilitation Oxford [u.a.] : Wiley-Blackwell, 1974 28(2001), 9, Seite 0 Online-Ressource (DE-627)NLEJ243927177 (DE-600)2007587-X 1365-2842 nnns volume:28 year:2001 number:9 pages:0 http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2842.2001.00735.x text/html Verlag Deutschlandweit zugänglich Volltext GBV_USEFLAG_U ZDB-1-DJB GBV_NL_ARTICLE AR 28 2001 9 0 |
| allfields_unstemmed |
10.1111/j.1365-2842.2001.00735.x doi (DE-627)NLEJ243049048 DE-627 ger DE-627 rakwb Lu, Y.-C. verfasserin aut Effects of surface treatments on bond strength of glass-infiltrated ceramic Oxford UK Blackwell Science Ltd 2001 Online-Ressource nicht spezifiziert zzz rdacontent nicht spezifiziert z rdamedia nicht spezifiziert zu rdacarrier The purpose of this study was to evaluate the effects of various surface treatments on the bond strength at the In-Ceram/resin composite interface. Ninety-eight In-Ceram specimens were divided into seven groups and exposed to various surface treatments as follows: (A) control (B) saliva contamination (C) saliva contamination plus aluminum oxide sandblasting (D) glove powder contamination (E) glove powder contamination plus aluminum oxide sandblasting (F) rough aluminum oxide sandblasting and (G) excess glass infiltration. A resin composite cylinder was cemented to each In-Ceram specimen with Panavia 21 resin luting cement. Half of the cemented specimens in each group were stored in water for 24 h, and the other half were stored in water for 2 weeks and then were thermo-cycled for 2000 cycles. Shear bond strengths (SBS) of seven specimens in each subgroup were determined and analysed using analysis of variance (ANOVA) and Tukey HSD test as well as Student‘s t-test. Scanning electronic microscopy was used to identify the type of bond failure. Shear bond strength was significantly decreased by saliva and glove powder contaminations (P < 0·05). Sandblasting treatment did not improve the saliva-contaminated specimens. However, the glove powder plus sandblasting group showed no significant difference in SBS compared with the control group. There was no significant difference in SBS between the excess glass-infiltrating group and the control group. The SBS was significantly decreased by rough aluminum oxide sandblasting (P < 0·05). The SBS values of groups without thermocycling were significantly greater than those of groups with thermocycling (P < 0·05). There were no significant differences among SBS values of the seven groups with thermocycling. Combined cohesive and adhesive bond failures were seen in every group. Various surface treatments or contaminants may significantly influence the bond strength of In-Ceram restorative in clinical use. 2008 Blackwell Publishing Journal Backfiles 1879-2005 |2008|||||||||| bond strength Tseng, H. verfasserin aut Shih, Y.-H. verfasserin aut Lee, S.-Y. oth In Journal of oral rehabilitation Oxford [u.a.] : Wiley-Blackwell, 1974 28(2001), 9, Seite 0 Online-Ressource (DE-627)NLEJ243927177 (DE-600)2007587-X 1365-2842 nnns volume:28 year:2001 number:9 pages:0 http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2842.2001.00735.x text/html Verlag Deutschlandweit zugänglich Volltext GBV_USEFLAG_U ZDB-1-DJB GBV_NL_ARTICLE AR 28 2001 9 0 |
| allfieldsGer |
10.1111/j.1365-2842.2001.00735.x doi (DE-627)NLEJ243049048 DE-627 ger DE-627 rakwb Lu, Y.-C. verfasserin aut Effects of surface treatments on bond strength of glass-infiltrated ceramic Oxford UK Blackwell Science Ltd 2001 Online-Ressource nicht spezifiziert zzz rdacontent nicht spezifiziert z rdamedia nicht spezifiziert zu rdacarrier The purpose of this study was to evaluate the effects of various surface treatments on the bond strength at the In-Ceram/resin composite interface. Ninety-eight In-Ceram specimens were divided into seven groups and exposed to various surface treatments as follows: (A) control (B) saliva contamination (C) saliva contamination plus aluminum oxide sandblasting (D) glove powder contamination (E) glove powder contamination plus aluminum oxide sandblasting (F) rough aluminum oxide sandblasting and (G) excess glass infiltration. A resin composite cylinder was cemented to each In-Ceram specimen with Panavia 21 resin luting cement. Half of the cemented specimens in each group were stored in water for 24 h, and the other half were stored in water for 2 weeks and then were thermo-cycled for 2000 cycles. Shear bond strengths (SBS) of seven specimens in each subgroup were determined and analysed using analysis of variance (ANOVA) and Tukey HSD test as well as Student‘s t-test. Scanning electronic microscopy was used to identify the type of bond failure. Shear bond strength was significantly decreased by saliva and glove powder contaminations (P < 0·05). Sandblasting treatment did not improve the saliva-contaminated specimens. However, the glove powder plus sandblasting group showed no significant difference in SBS compared with the control group. There was no significant difference in SBS between the excess glass-infiltrating group and the control group. The SBS was significantly decreased by rough aluminum oxide sandblasting (P < 0·05). The SBS values of groups without thermocycling were significantly greater than those of groups with thermocycling (P < 0·05). There were no significant differences among SBS values of the seven groups with thermocycling. Combined cohesive and adhesive bond failures were seen in every group. Various surface treatments or contaminants may significantly influence the bond strength of In-Ceram restorative in clinical use. 2008 Blackwell Publishing Journal Backfiles 1879-2005 |2008|||||||||| bond strength Tseng, H. verfasserin aut Shih, Y.-H. verfasserin aut Lee, S.-Y. oth In Journal of oral rehabilitation Oxford [u.a.] : Wiley-Blackwell, 1974 28(2001), 9, Seite 0 Online-Ressource (DE-627)NLEJ243927177 (DE-600)2007587-X 1365-2842 nnns volume:28 year:2001 number:9 pages:0 http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2842.2001.00735.x text/html Verlag Deutschlandweit zugänglich Volltext GBV_USEFLAG_U ZDB-1-DJB GBV_NL_ARTICLE AR 28 2001 9 0 |
| allfieldsSound |
10.1111/j.1365-2842.2001.00735.x doi (DE-627)NLEJ243049048 DE-627 ger DE-627 rakwb Lu, Y.-C. verfasserin aut Effects of surface treatments on bond strength of glass-infiltrated ceramic Oxford UK Blackwell Science Ltd 2001 Online-Ressource nicht spezifiziert zzz rdacontent nicht spezifiziert z rdamedia nicht spezifiziert zu rdacarrier The purpose of this study was to evaluate the effects of various surface treatments on the bond strength at the In-Ceram/resin composite interface. Ninety-eight In-Ceram specimens were divided into seven groups and exposed to various surface treatments as follows: (A) control (B) saliva contamination (C) saliva contamination plus aluminum oxide sandblasting (D) glove powder contamination (E) glove powder contamination plus aluminum oxide sandblasting (F) rough aluminum oxide sandblasting and (G) excess glass infiltration. A resin composite cylinder was cemented to each In-Ceram specimen with Panavia 21 resin luting cement. Half of the cemented specimens in each group were stored in water for 24 h, and the other half were stored in water for 2 weeks and then were thermo-cycled for 2000 cycles. Shear bond strengths (SBS) of seven specimens in each subgroup were determined and analysed using analysis of variance (ANOVA) and Tukey HSD test as well as Student‘s t-test. Scanning electronic microscopy was used to identify the type of bond failure. Shear bond strength was significantly decreased by saliva and glove powder contaminations (P < 0·05). Sandblasting treatment did not improve the saliva-contaminated specimens. However, the glove powder plus sandblasting group showed no significant difference in SBS compared with the control group. There was no significant difference in SBS between the excess glass-infiltrating group and the control group. The SBS was significantly decreased by rough aluminum oxide sandblasting (P < 0·05). The SBS values of groups without thermocycling were significantly greater than those of groups with thermocycling (P < 0·05). There were no significant differences among SBS values of the seven groups with thermocycling. Combined cohesive and adhesive bond failures were seen in every group. Various surface treatments or contaminants may significantly influence the bond strength of In-Ceram restorative in clinical use. 2008 Blackwell Publishing Journal Backfiles 1879-2005 |2008|||||||||| bond strength Tseng, H. verfasserin aut Shih, Y.-H. verfasserin aut Lee, S.-Y. oth In Journal of oral rehabilitation Oxford [u.a.] : Wiley-Blackwell, 1974 28(2001), 9, Seite 0 Online-Ressource (DE-627)NLEJ243927177 (DE-600)2007587-X 1365-2842 nnns volume:28 year:2001 number:9 pages:0 http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2842.2001.00735.x text/html Verlag Deutschlandweit zugänglich Volltext GBV_USEFLAG_U ZDB-1-DJB GBV_NL_ARTICLE AR 28 2001 9 0 |
| source |
In Journal of oral rehabilitation 28(2001), 9, Seite 0 volume:28 year:2001 number:9 pages:0 |
| sourceStr |
In Journal of oral rehabilitation 28(2001), 9, Seite 0 volume:28 year:2001 number:9 pages:0 |
| format_phy_str_mv |
Article |
| institution |
findex.gbv.de |
| topic_facet |
bond strength |
| isfreeaccess_bool |
false |
| container_title |
Journal of oral rehabilitation |
| authorswithroles_txt_mv |
Lu, Y.-C. @@aut@@ Tseng, H. @@aut@@ Shih, Y.-H. @@aut@@ Lee, S.-Y. @@oth@@ |
| publishDateDaySort_date |
2001-01-01T00:00:00Z |
| hierarchy_top_id |
NLEJ243927177 |
| id |
NLEJ243049048 |
| fullrecord |
<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><collection xmlns="http://www.loc.gov/MARC21/slim"><record><leader>01000caa a22002652 4500</leader><controlfield tag="001">NLEJ243049048</controlfield><controlfield tag="003">DE-627</controlfield><controlfield tag="005">20210707171810.0</controlfield><controlfield tag="007">cr uuu---uuuuu</controlfield><controlfield tag="008">120427s2001 xx |||||o 00| ||und c</controlfield><datafield tag="024" ind1="7" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">10.1111/j.1365-2842.2001.00735.x</subfield><subfield code="2">doi</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="035" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">(DE-627)NLEJ243049048</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="040" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">DE-627</subfield><subfield code="b">ger</subfield><subfield code="c">DE-627</subfield><subfield code="e">rakwb</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="100" ind1="1" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Lu, Y.-C.</subfield><subfield code="e">verfasserin</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="245" ind1="1" ind2="0"><subfield code="a">Effects of surface treatments on bond strength of glass-infiltrated ceramic</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="264" ind1=" " ind2="1"><subfield code="a">Oxford UK</subfield><subfield code="b">Blackwell Science Ltd</subfield><subfield code="c">2001</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="300" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Online-Ressource</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="336" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">nicht spezifiziert</subfield><subfield code="b">zzz</subfield><subfield code="2">rdacontent</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="337" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">nicht spezifiziert</subfield><subfield code="b">z</subfield><subfield code="2">rdamedia</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="338" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">nicht spezifiziert</subfield><subfield code="b">zu</subfield><subfield code="2">rdacarrier</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="520" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">The purpose of this study was to evaluate the effects of various surface treatments on the bond strength at the In-Ceram/resin composite interface. Ninety-eight In-Ceram specimens were divided into seven groups and exposed to various surface treatments as follows: (A) control (B) saliva contamination (C) saliva contamination plus aluminum oxide sandblasting (D) glove powder contamination (E) glove powder contamination plus aluminum oxide sandblasting (F) rough aluminum oxide sandblasting and (G) excess glass infiltration. A resin composite cylinder was cemented to each In-Ceram specimen with Panavia 21 resin luting cement. Half of the cemented specimens in each group were stored in water for 24 h, and the other half were stored in water for 2 weeks and then were thermo-cycled for 2000 cycles. Shear bond strengths (SBS) of seven specimens in each subgroup were determined and analysed using analysis of variance (ANOVA) and Tukey HSD test as well as Student‘s t-test. Scanning electronic microscopy was used to identify the type of bond failure. Shear bond strength was significantly decreased by saliva and glove powder contaminations (P < 0·05). Sandblasting treatment did not improve the saliva-contaminated specimens. However, the glove powder plus sandblasting group showed no significant difference in SBS compared with the control group. There was no significant difference in SBS between the excess glass-infiltrating group and the control group. The SBS was significantly decreased by rough aluminum oxide sandblasting (P < 0·05). The SBS values of groups without thermocycling were significantly greater than those of groups with thermocycling (P < 0·05). There were no significant differences among SBS values of the seven groups with thermocycling. Combined cohesive and adhesive bond failures were seen in every group. Various surface treatments or contaminants may significantly influence the bond strength of In-Ceram restorative in clinical use.</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="533" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="d">2008</subfield><subfield code="f">Blackwell Publishing Journal Backfiles 1879-2005</subfield><subfield code="7">|2008||||||||||</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">bond strength</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="1" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Tseng, H.</subfield><subfield code="e">verfasserin</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="1" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Shih, Y.-H.</subfield><subfield code="e">verfasserin</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="1" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Lee, S.-Y.</subfield><subfield code="4">oth</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="773" ind1="0" ind2="8"><subfield code="i">In</subfield><subfield code="t">Journal of oral rehabilitation</subfield><subfield code="d">Oxford [u.a.] : Wiley-Blackwell, 1974</subfield><subfield code="g">28(2001), 9, Seite 0</subfield><subfield code="h">Online-Ressource</subfield><subfield code="w">(DE-627)NLEJ243927177</subfield><subfield code="w">(DE-600)2007587-X</subfield><subfield code="x">1365-2842</subfield><subfield code="7">nnns</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="773" ind1="1" ind2="8"><subfield code="g">volume:28</subfield><subfield code="g">year:2001</subfield><subfield code="g">number:9</subfield><subfield code="g">pages:0</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="856" ind1="4" ind2="0"><subfield code="u">http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2842.2001.00735.x</subfield><subfield code="q">text/html</subfield><subfield code="x">Verlag</subfield><subfield code="z">Deutschlandweit zugänglich</subfield><subfield code="3">Volltext</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_USEFLAG_U</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">ZDB-1-DJB</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_NL_ARTICLE</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="951" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">AR</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="952" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="d">28</subfield><subfield code="j">2001</subfield><subfield code="e">9</subfield><subfield code="h">0</subfield></datafield></record></collection>
|
| series2 |
Blackwell Publishing Journal Backfiles 1879-2005 |
| author |
Lu, Y.-C. |
| spellingShingle |
Lu, Y.-C. misc bond strength Effects of surface treatments on bond strength of glass-infiltrated ceramic |
| authorStr |
Lu, Y.-C. |
| ppnlink_with_tag_str_mv |
@@773@@(DE-627)NLEJ243927177 |
| format |
electronic Article |
| delete_txt_mv |
keep |
| author_role |
aut aut aut |
| collection |
NL |
| publishPlace |
Oxford UK |
| remote_str |
true |
| illustrated |
Not Illustrated |
| issn |
1365-2842 |
| topic_title |
Effects of surface treatments on bond strength of glass-infiltrated ceramic bond strength |
| publisher |
Blackwell Science Ltd |
| publisherStr |
Blackwell Science Ltd |
| topic |
misc bond strength |
| topic_unstemmed |
misc bond strength |
| topic_browse |
misc bond strength |
| format_facet |
Elektronische Aufsätze Aufsätze Elektronische Ressource |
| format_main_str_mv |
Text Zeitschrift/Artikel |
| carriertype_str_mv |
zu |
| author2_variant |
s y l syl |
| hierarchy_parent_title |
Journal of oral rehabilitation |
| hierarchy_parent_id |
NLEJ243927177 |
| hierarchy_top_title |
Journal of oral rehabilitation |
| isfreeaccess_txt |
false |
| familylinks_str_mv |
(DE-627)NLEJ243927177 (DE-600)2007587-X |
| title |
Effects of surface treatments on bond strength of glass-infiltrated ceramic |
| ctrlnum |
(DE-627)NLEJ243049048 |
| title_full |
Effects of surface treatments on bond strength of glass-infiltrated ceramic |
| author_sort |
Lu, Y.-C. |
| journal |
Journal of oral rehabilitation |
| journalStr |
Journal of oral rehabilitation |
| isOA_bool |
false |
| recordtype |
marc |
| publishDateSort |
2001 |
| contenttype_str_mv |
zzz |
| container_start_page |
0 |
| author_browse |
Lu, Y.-C. Tseng, H. Shih, Y.-H. |
| container_volume |
28 |
| physical |
Online-Ressource |
| format_se |
Elektronische Aufsätze |
| author-letter |
Lu, Y.-C. |
| doi_str_mv |
10.1111/j.1365-2842.2001.00735.x |
| author2-role |
verfasserin |
| title_sort |
effects of surface treatments on bond strength of glass-infiltrated ceramic |
| title_auth |
Effects of surface treatments on bond strength of glass-infiltrated ceramic |
| abstract |
The purpose of this study was to evaluate the effects of various surface treatments on the bond strength at the In-Ceram/resin composite interface. Ninety-eight In-Ceram specimens were divided into seven groups and exposed to various surface treatments as follows: (A) control (B) saliva contamination (C) saliva contamination plus aluminum oxide sandblasting (D) glove powder contamination (E) glove powder contamination plus aluminum oxide sandblasting (F) rough aluminum oxide sandblasting and (G) excess glass infiltration. A resin composite cylinder was cemented to each In-Ceram specimen with Panavia 21 resin luting cement. Half of the cemented specimens in each group were stored in water for 24 h, and the other half were stored in water for 2 weeks and then were thermo-cycled for 2000 cycles. Shear bond strengths (SBS) of seven specimens in each subgroup were determined and analysed using analysis of variance (ANOVA) and Tukey HSD test as well as Student‘s t-test. Scanning electronic microscopy was used to identify the type of bond failure. Shear bond strength was significantly decreased by saliva and glove powder contaminations (P < 0·05). Sandblasting treatment did not improve the saliva-contaminated specimens. However, the glove powder plus sandblasting group showed no significant difference in SBS compared with the control group. There was no significant difference in SBS between the excess glass-infiltrating group and the control group. The SBS was significantly decreased by rough aluminum oxide sandblasting (P < 0·05). The SBS values of groups without thermocycling were significantly greater than those of groups with thermocycling (P < 0·05). There were no significant differences among SBS values of the seven groups with thermocycling. Combined cohesive and adhesive bond failures were seen in every group. Various surface treatments or contaminants may significantly influence the bond strength of In-Ceram restorative in clinical use. |
| abstractGer |
The purpose of this study was to evaluate the effects of various surface treatments on the bond strength at the In-Ceram/resin composite interface. Ninety-eight In-Ceram specimens were divided into seven groups and exposed to various surface treatments as follows: (A) control (B) saliva contamination (C) saliva contamination plus aluminum oxide sandblasting (D) glove powder contamination (E) glove powder contamination plus aluminum oxide sandblasting (F) rough aluminum oxide sandblasting and (G) excess glass infiltration. A resin composite cylinder was cemented to each In-Ceram specimen with Panavia 21 resin luting cement. Half of the cemented specimens in each group were stored in water for 24 h, and the other half were stored in water for 2 weeks and then were thermo-cycled for 2000 cycles. Shear bond strengths (SBS) of seven specimens in each subgroup were determined and analysed using analysis of variance (ANOVA) and Tukey HSD test as well as Student‘s t-test. Scanning electronic microscopy was used to identify the type of bond failure. Shear bond strength was significantly decreased by saliva and glove powder contaminations (P < 0·05). Sandblasting treatment did not improve the saliva-contaminated specimens. However, the glove powder plus sandblasting group showed no significant difference in SBS compared with the control group. There was no significant difference in SBS between the excess glass-infiltrating group and the control group. The SBS was significantly decreased by rough aluminum oxide sandblasting (P < 0·05). The SBS values of groups without thermocycling were significantly greater than those of groups with thermocycling (P < 0·05). There were no significant differences among SBS values of the seven groups with thermocycling. Combined cohesive and adhesive bond failures were seen in every group. Various surface treatments or contaminants may significantly influence the bond strength of In-Ceram restorative in clinical use. |
| abstract_unstemmed |
The purpose of this study was to evaluate the effects of various surface treatments on the bond strength at the In-Ceram/resin composite interface. Ninety-eight In-Ceram specimens were divided into seven groups and exposed to various surface treatments as follows: (A) control (B) saliva contamination (C) saliva contamination plus aluminum oxide sandblasting (D) glove powder contamination (E) glove powder contamination plus aluminum oxide sandblasting (F) rough aluminum oxide sandblasting and (G) excess glass infiltration. A resin composite cylinder was cemented to each In-Ceram specimen with Panavia 21 resin luting cement. Half of the cemented specimens in each group were stored in water for 24 h, and the other half were stored in water for 2 weeks and then were thermo-cycled for 2000 cycles. Shear bond strengths (SBS) of seven specimens in each subgroup were determined and analysed using analysis of variance (ANOVA) and Tukey HSD test as well as Student‘s t-test. Scanning electronic microscopy was used to identify the type of bond failure. Shear bond strength was significantly decreased by saliva and glove powder contaminations (P < 0·05). Sandblasting treatment did not improve the saliva-contaminated specimens. However, the glove powder plus sandblasting group showed no significant difference in SBS compared with the control group. There was no significant difference in SBS between the excess glass-infiltrating group and the control group. The SBS was significantly decreased by rough aluminum oxide sandblasting (P < 0·05). The SBS values of groups without thermocycling were significantly greater than those of groups with thermocycling (P < 0·05). There were no significant differences among SBS values of the seven groups with thermocycling. Combined cohesive and adhesive bond failures were seen in every group. Various surface treatments or contaminants may significantly influence the bond strength of In-Ceram restorative in clinical use. |
| collection_details |
GBV_USEFLAG_U ZDB-1-DJB GBV_NL_ARTICLE |
| container_issue |
9 |
| title_short |
Effects of surface treatments on bond strength of glass-infiltrated ceramic |
| url |
http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2842.2001.00735.x |
| remote_bool |
true |
| author2 |
Tseng, H. Shih, Y.-H. Lee, S.-Y. |
| author2Str |
Tseng, H. Shih, Y.-H. Lee, S.-Y. |
| ppnlink |
NLEJ243927177 |
| mediatype_str_mv |
z |
| isOA_txt |
false |
| hochschulschrift_bool |
false |
| author2_role |
oth |
| doi_str |
10.1111/j.1365-2842.2001.00735.x |
| up_date |
2024-07-06T04:06:31.031Z |
| _version_ |
1803801110545170432 |
| fullrecord_marcxml |
<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><collection xmlns="http://www.loc.gov/MARC21/slim"><record><leader>01000caa a22002652 4500</leader><controlfield tag="001">NLEJ243049048</controlfield><controlfield tag="003">DE-627</controlfield><controlfield tag="005">20210707171810.0</controlfield><controlfield tag="007">cr uuu---uuuuu</controlfield><controlfield tag="008">120427s2001 xx |||||o 00| ||und c</controlfield><datafield tag="024" ind1="7" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">10.1111/j.1365-2842.2001.00735.x</subfield><subfield code="2">doi</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="035" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">(DE-627)NLEJ243049048</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="040" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">DE-627</subfield><subfield code="b">ger</subfield><subfield code="c">DE-627</subfield><subfield code="e">rakwb</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="100" ind1="1" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Lu, Y.-C.</subfield><subfield code="e">verfasserin</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="245" ind1="1" ind2="0"><subfield code="a">Effects of surface treatments on bond strength of glass-infiltrated ceramic</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="264" ind1=" " ind2="1"><subfield code="a">Oxford UK</subfield><subfield code="b">Blackwell Science Ltd</subfield><subfield code="c">2001</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="300" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Online-Ressource</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="336" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">nicht spezifiziert</subfield><subfield code="b">zzz</subfield><subfield code="2">rdacontent</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="337" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">nicht spezifiziert</subfield><subfield code="b">z</subfield><subfield code="2">rdamedia</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="338" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">nicht spezifiziert</subfield><subfield code="b">zu</subfield><subfield code="2">rdacarrier</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="520" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">The purpose of this study was to evaluate the effects of various surface treatments on the bond strength at the In-Ceram/resin composite interface. Ninety-eight In-Ceram specimens were divided into seven groups and exposed to various surface treatments as follows: (A) control (B) saliva contamination (C) saliva contamination plus aluminum oxide sandblasting (D) glove powder contamination (E) glove powder contamination plus aluminum oxide sandblasting (F) rough aluminum oxide sandblasting and (G) excess glass infiltration. A resin composite cylinder was cemented to each In-Ceram specimen with Panavia 21 resin luting cement. Half of the cemented specimens in each group were stored in water for 24 h, and the other half were stored in water for 2 weeks and then were thermo-cycled for 2000 cycles. Shear bond strengths (SBS) of seven specimens in each subgroup were determined and analysed using analysis of variance (ANOVA) and Tukey HSD test as well as Student‘s t-test. Scanning electronic microscopy was used to identify the type of bond failure. Shear bond strength was significantly decreased by saliva and glove powder contaminations (P < 0·05). Sandblasting treatment did not improve the saliva-contaminated specimens. However, the glove powder plus sandblasting group showed no significant difference in SBS compared with the control group. There was no significant difference in SBS between the excess glass-infiltrating group and the control group. The SBS was significantly decreased by rough aluminum oxide sandblasting (P < 0·05). The SBS values of groups without thermocycling were significantly greater than those of groups with thermocycling (P < 0·05). There were no significant differences among SBS values of the seven groups with thermocycling. Combined cohesive and adhesive bond failures were seen in every group. Various surface treatments or contaminants may significantly influence the bond strength of In-Ceram restorative in clinical use.</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="533" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="d">2008</subfield><subfield code="f">Blackwell Publishing Journal Backfiles 1879-2005</subfield><subfield code="7">|2008||||||||||</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">bond strength</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="1" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Tseng, H.</subfield><subfield code="e">verfasserin</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="1" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Shih, Y.-H.</subfield><subfield code="e">verfasserin</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="1" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Lee, S.-Y.</subfield><subfield code="4">oth</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="773" ind1="0" ind2="8"><subfield code="i">In</subfield><subfield code="t">Journal of oral rehabilitation</subfield><subfield code="d">Oxford [u.a.] : Wiley-Blackwell, 1974</subfield><subfield code="g">28(2001), 9, Seite 0</subfield><subfield code="h">Online-Ressource</subfield><subfield code="w">(DE-627)NLEJ243927177</subfield><subfield code="w">(DE-600)2007587-X</subfield><subfield code="x">1365-2842</subfield><subfield code="7">nnns</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="773" ind1="1" ind2="8"><subfield code="g">volume:28</subfield><subfield code="g">year:2001</subfield><subfield code="g">number:9</subfield><subfield code="g">pages:0</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="856" ind1="4" ind2="0"><subfield code="u">http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2842.2001.00735.x</subfield><subfield code="q">text/html</subfield><subfield code="x">Verlag</subfield><subfield code="z">Deutschlandweit zugänglich</subfield><subfield code="3">Volltext</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_USEFLAG_U</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">ZDB-1-DJB</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_NL_ARTICLE</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="951" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">AR</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="952" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="d">28</subfield><subfield code="j">2001</subfield><subfield code="e">9</subfield><subfield code="h">0</subfield></datafield></record></collection>
|
| score |
7.4014225 |