FRINK Linked Data Fragments server

Matches in SemOpenAlex for { <https://semopenalex.org/work/W1990296779> ?p ?o ?g. }

• W1990296779 endingPage "281" @default.
• W1990296779 startingPage "275" @default.
• W1990296779 abstract "Cementation of inlay restoration is critical. Because of its high organic content, dentin is a less favorable substrate for bonding than enamel. Therefore it is important to improve dentin adhesion when placing ceramic inlay restorations.The purpose of this study was to compare the dentin bond strengths of 2 different ceramic inlay systems after cementation with 3 different techniques and 1 bonding system.One hundred twenty freshly extracted caries- and restoration-free molar teeth used in this study were stored in saline solution at room temperature. Standardized Class I preparations were made in all teeth. Each preparation had a length of 6 mm, a width of 3 mm, a depth of 2 mm, and 6-degree convergence of the walls. Teeth were randomly assigned to 2 groups of 60 each to evaluate the bonding of 2 ceramic systems, Ceramco II (Group I) and IPS Empress 2 (Group II), to dentin. Each of the 2 groups were further divided into 3 cementation technique groups of 20 each (Group I A, B, and C and Group II A, B, and C). Groups I A and B and Groups II A and B used dentin bonding agent (DBA) Clearfil Liner Bond 2V, and resin cement (Panavia F). Groups I C and II C served as control groups and used Panavia F without the dentin-bonding agent. In Groups I A and II A, the DBA was applied immediately after the completion of the preparations (D-DBA). Impressions were then made, and the ceramic inlays were fabricated according to the manufacturers' guidelines. In Groups I B and II B the DBA was applied just before luting the inlay restorations (I-DBA). In Groups I C and II C, no bonding agent was used before the cementation of the inlay restorations (No DBA). Cementation procedures followed a standard protocol. After cementation, specimens were stored in distilled water at 37 degrees C for 24 hours. The teeth were sectioned both mesial-distally and buccal-lingually along their long axis into three 1.2 x 1.2 mm wide |-shaped sections. The specimens were then subjected to microtensile testing at a crosshead speed of 1 mm/min, and the maximum load at fracture (in kilograms) was recorded. Two-way analysis of variance and Tukey honestly significant difference tests were used to evaluate the results (P<.05). Scanning electron microscopy analysis was used to examine the details of the bonding interface. The fractured surfaces were observed with a stereomicroscope at original magnification x22 to identify the mode of fracture.Although no significant difference was found among the 2 ceramic systems with regard to dentin bond strengths (P>.05), the difference between the cementation techniques was found to be significant (P<.001). Comparison among techniques showed that the dentin bond strength in the D-DBA technique had a significantly higher mean (40.27 +/- 8.55 Kg) than the I-DBA (30.20 +/- 6.78 Kg) and No DBA techniques (32.43 +/- 8.58 Kg). As a result of scanning electron microscopy analysis, a distinct and thicker hybrid zone with more, and longer resin tags were found in specimens treated with the D-DBA technique than with the other 2 techniques. Most failures (353 of 360) were adhesive in nature at the bonding resin/dentin interface. Only 7 specimens showed cohesive failure within the bonding resin.Within the limitations of this in vitro study, the cementation of the ceramic inlays tested with the D-DBA technique used resulted in higher bond strengths to dentin." @default.
• W1990296779 created "2016-06-24" @default.
• W1990296779 creator A5014404634 @default.
• W1990296779 creator A5031147005 @default.
• W1990296779 date "2003-03-01" @default.
• W1990296779 modified "2023-10-14" @default.
• W1990296779 title "Dentin bond strengths of two ceramic inlay systems after cementation with three different techniques and one bonding system" @default.
• W1990296779 cites W1977105500 @default.
• W1990296779 cites W1978184753 @default.
• W1990296779 cites W1981584765 @default.
• W1990296779 cites W1994363425 @default.
• W1990296779 cites W2001361273 @default.
• W1990296779 cites W2003500951 @default.
• W1990296779 cites W2006855310 @default.
• W1990296779 cites W2024019766 @default.
• W1990296779 cites W2070156375 @default.
• W1990296779 cites W2071219474 @default.
• W1990296779 cites W2073955600 @default.
• W1990296779 cites W2106571031 @default.
• W1990296779 cites W2152677085 @default.
• W1990296779 doi "https://doi.org/10.1067/mpr.2003.37" @default.
• W1990296779 hasPubMedId "https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/12644803" @default.
• W1990296779 hasPublicationYear "2003" @default.
• W1990296779 type Work @default.
• W1990296779 sameAs 1990296779 @default.
• W1990296779 citedByCount "58" @default.
• W1990296779 countsByYear W19902967792012 @default.
• W1990296779 countsByYear W19902967792013 @default.
• W1990296779 countsByYear W19902967792014 @default.
• W1990296779 countsByYear W19902967792015 @default.
• W1990296779 countsByYear W19902967792016 @default.
• W1990296779 countsByYear W19902967792017 @default.
• W1990296779 countsByYear W19902967792018 @default.
• W1990296779 countsByYear W19902967792019 @default.
• W1990296779 countsByYear W19902967792020 @default.
• W1990296779 countsByYear W19902967792021 @default.
• W1990296779 countsByYear W19902967792022 @default.
• W1990296779 crossrefType "journal-article" @default.
• W1990296779 hasAuthorship W1990296779A5014404634 @default.
• W1990296779 hasAuthorship W1990296779A5031147005 @default.
• W1990296779 hasConcept C134132462 @default.
• W1990296779 hasConcept C156887251 @default.
• W1990296779 hasConcept C159096172 @default.
• W1990296779 hasConcept C159985019 @default.
• W1990296779 hasConcept C190719290 @default.
• W1990296779 hasConcept C192562407 @default.
• W1990296779 hasConcept C199343813 @default.
• W1990296779 hasConcept C202271784 @default.
• W1990296779 hasConcept C2779227376 @default.
• W1990296779 hasConcept C2779263046 @default.
• W1990296779 hasConcept C523993062 @default.
• W1990296779 hasConcept C68928338 @default.
• W1990296779 hasConcept C71924100 @default.
• W1990296779 hasConcept C94556721 @default.
• W1990296779 hasConceptScore W1990296779C134132462 @default.
• W1990296779 hasConceptScore W1990296779C156887251 @default.
• W1990296779 hasConceptScore W1990296779C159096172 @default.
• W1990296779 hasConceptScore W1990296779C159985019 @default.
• W1990296779 hasConceptScore W1990296779C190719290 @default.
• W1990296779 hasConceptScore W1990296779C192562407 @default.
• W1990296779 hasConceptScore W1990296779C199343813 @default.
• W1990296779 hasConceptScore W1990296779C202271784 @default.
• W1990296779 hasConceptScore W1990296779C2779227376 @default.
• W1990296779 hasConceptScore W1990296779C2779263046 @default.
• W1990296779 hasConceptScore W1990296779C523993062 @default.
• W1990296779 hasConceptScore W1990296779C68928338 @default.
• W1990296779 hasConceptScore W1990296779C71924100 @default.
• W1990296779 hasConceptScore W1990296779C94556721 @default.
• W1990296779 hasIssue "3" @default.
• W1990296779 hasLocation W19902967791 @default.
• W1990296779 hasLocation W19902967792 @default.
• W1990296779 hasOpenAccess W1990296779 @default.
• W1990296779 hasPrimaryLocation W19902967791 @default.
• W1990296779 hasRelatedWork W15928199 @default.
• W1990296779 hasRelatedWork W189283484 @default.
• W1990296779 hasRelatedWork W2064144765 @default.
• W1990296779 hasRelatedWork W2297491659 @default.
• W1990296779 hasRelatedWork W2364246586 @default.
• W1990296779 hasRelatedWork W2405328949 @default.
• W1990296779 hasRelatedWork W2419243882 @default.
• W1990296779 hasRelatedWork W2982586961 @default.
• W1990296779 hasRelatedWork W3021589997 @default.
• W1990296779 hasRelatedWork W90450723 @default.
• W1990296779 hasVolume "89" @default.
• W1990296779 isParatext "false" @default.
• W1990296779 isRetracted "false" @default.
• W1990296779 magId "1990296779" @default.
• W1990296779 workType "article" @default.