Skip to content
Home
About Us
Resources
Profiles Metrics
Authors Directory
Institutions Directory
Top Authors
Top Institutions
Top Sponsors
AI Digest
Contact Us
Menu
Home
About Us
Resources
Profiles Metrics
Authors Directory
Institutions Directory
Top Authors
Top Institutions
Top Sponsors
AI Digest
Contact Us
Home
About Us
Resources
Profiles Metrics
Authors Directory
Institutions Directory
Top Authors
Top Institutions
Top Sponsors
AI Digest
Contact Us
Menu
Home
About Us
Resources
Profiles Metrics
Authors Directory
Institutions Directory
Top Authors
Top Institutions
Top Sponsors
AI Digest
Contact Us
Publication Details
AFRICAN RESEARCH NEXUS
SHINING A SPOTLIGHT ON AFRICAN RESEARCH
engineering
Innovations in bonding to zirconia based ceramics: Part III. Phosphate monomer resin cements
Dental Materials, Volume 26, No. 8, Year 2010
Notification
URL copied to clipboard!
Description
Purpose: To compare the bond strength values and the ranking order of three phosphate monomer containing resin cements using microtensile (μTBS) and microshear (μSBS) bond strength tests. Materials and methods: Zirconia discs (Procera Zirconia) were bonded to resin composite discs (Filtek Z250) using three different cements (Panavia F 2.0, RelyX UniCem, and Multilink). Two bond strength tests were used to determine zirconia resin bond strength; microtensile bond strength test (μTBS) and microshear bond strength test (μSBS). Ten specimens were tested for each group (n = 10). Two-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) was used to analyze the data (α = 0.05). Results: There were statistical significant differences in bond strength values and in the ranking order obtained using the two test methods. μTBS reported significant differences in bond strength values, whereas μSBS failed to detect such effect. Both Multilink and Panavia demonstrated basically cohesive failure in the resin cement while RelyX UniCem demonstrated interfacial failure. Conclusion: Based on the findings of this study, the data obtained using either μTBS or μSBS could not be directly compared. μTBS was more sensitive to material differences compared to μSBS which failed to detect such differences. © 2010 Academy of Dental Materials.
Authors & Co-Authors
Mirmohammadi, Hesam H.
Netherlands, Amsterdam
Academisch Centrum Tandheelkunde Amsterdam
Iran, Isfahan
Isfahan University of Medical Sciences
Aboushelib, Moustafa Nabil M.
Netherlands, Amsterdam
Academisch Centrum Tandheelkunde Amsterdam
Egypt, Alexandria
Faculty of Dentistry
Salameh, Ziad A.
Unknown Affiliation
Feilzer, Albert Joseph
Netherlands, Amsterdam
Academisch Centrum Tandheelkunde Amsterdam
Kleverlaan, Cornelis J.
Netherlands, Amsterdam
Academisch Centrum Tandheelkunde Amsterdam
Statistics
Citations: 101
Authors: 5
Affiliations: 3
Identifiers
Doi:
10.1016/j.dental.2010.04.003
ISSN:
01095641
Research Areas
Health System And Policy