File Download

There are no files associated with this item.

  Links for fulltext
     (May Require Subscription)
Supplementary

Article: Influence of cavity configuration on the adhesion of two resin-based composites to pulpal floor dentin

TitleInfluence of cavity configuration on the adhesion of two resin-based composites to pulpal floor dentin
Authors
KeywordsChemicals And Cas Registry Numbers
Issue Date2005
PublisherMosher & Linder, Inc. The Journal's web site is located at http://www.amjdent.com
Citation
American Journal Of Dentistry, 2005, v. 18 n. 4, p. 233-236 How to Cite?
AbstractPurpose: To evaluate the effect of cavity configuration on microtensile bond strengths of two resin composites for core build-up to pulpal floor dentin. Methods: Access cavity preparation and root canal filling with gutta percha were performed on extracted human molars. Following this, the gutta percha in the pulp chamber was completely removed to expose pulpal floor dentin. The cavity walls remained as a control group (Cavity). For another group, the cavity walls were removed to create a flat surface for bonding (Flat). For the Cavity group, Clearfil SE Bond was applied to the cavity according to the manufacturer's instructions, and either a light-cured resin composite (PH, Clearfil Photo Core) or a dual-cured resin composite (DC, Clearfil DC Core), was placed in the bonded cavity. Clearfil Photo Core was placed in three increments while bulk-filling was used for Clearfil DC Core. The application of the bonding system and the composites to the flat dentin surface was the same as that for cavity. Specimens were stored in water for 1 week, then sectioned vertically into 2 or 3 slabs (0.7 mm thick) and trimmed for the microtensile bond strength (MTBS) test. The MTBSs were measured with a universal testing machine at a crosshead speed of 1.0 mm/minute. Results: The results (mean ± SD, MPa, n=10) of PH/Cavity, PH/Flat and DC/Flat were 21.9 ± 3.4, 28.9 ± 4.0, and 27.6 ± 6.1 respectively. The MTBS could not be determined in DC/Cavity because of debonding occurred during sample preparation.
Persistent Identifierhttp://hdl.handle.net/10722/90646
ISSN
2015 Impact Factor: 1.194
2015 SCImago Journal Rankings: 0.443
ISI Accession Number ID
References

 

DC FieldValueLanguage
dc.contributor.authorAkagawa, Hen_HK
dc.contributor.authorNikaido, Ten_HK
dc.contributor.authorBurrow, MFen_HK
dc.contributor.authorTagami, Jen_HK
dc.date.accessioned2010-09-17T10:06:11Z-
dc.date.available2010-09-17T10:06:11Z-
dc.date.issued2005en_HK
dc.identifier.citationAmerican Journal Of Dentistry, 2005, v. 18 n. 4, p. 233-236en_HK
dc.identifier.issn0894-8275en_HK
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/10722/90646-
dc.description.abstractPurpose: To evaluate the effect of cavity configuration on microtensile bond strengths of two resin composites for core build-up to pulpal floor dentin. Methods: Access cavity preparation and root canal filling with gutta percha were performed on extracted human molars. Following this, the gutta percha in the pulp chamber was completely removed to expose pulpal floor dentin. The cavity walls remained as a control group (Cavity). For another group, the cavity walls were removed to create a flat surface for bonding (Flat). For the Cavity group, Clearfil SE Bond was applied to the cavity according to the manufacturer's instructions, and either a light-cured resin composite (PH, Clearfil Photo Core) or a dual-cured resin composite (DC, Clearfil DC Core), was placed in the bonded cavity. Clearfil Photo Core was placed in three increments while bulk-filling was used for Clearfil DC Core. The application of the bonding system and the composites to the flat dentin surface was the same as that for cavity. Specimens were stored in water for 1 week, then sectioned vertically into 2 or 3 slabs (0.7 mm thick) and trimmed for the microtensile bond strength (MTBS) test. The MTBSs were measured with a universal testing machine at a crosshead speed of 1.0 mm/minute. Results: The results (mean ± SD, MPa, n=10) of PH/Cavity, PH/Flat and DC/Flat were 21.9 ± 3.4, 28.9 ± 4.0, and 27.6 ± 6.1 respectively. The MTBS could not be determined in DC/Cavity because of debonding occurred during sample preparation.en_HK
dc.languageengen_HK
dc.publisherMosher & Linder, Inc. The Journal's web site is located at http://www.amjdent.comen_HK
dc.relation.ispartofAmerican Journal of Dentistryen_HK
dc.subjectChemicals And Cas Registry Numbersen_HK
dc.subject.meshAnalysis of Varianceen_HK
dc.subject.meshComposite Resinsen_HK
dc.subject.meshDental Bondingen_HK
dc.subject.meshDental Cavity Liningen_HK
dc.subject.meshDental Cavity Preparation - methodsen_HK
dc.subject.meshDental Restoration, Permanent - methodsen_HK
dc.subject.meshDental Stress Analysisen_HK
dc.subject.meshDentinen_HK
dc.subject.meshDentin-Bonding Agentsen_HK
dc.subject.meshHumansen_HK
dc.subject.meshMaterials Testingen_HK
dc.subject.meshMicroscopy, Electron, Scanningen_HK
dc.subject.meshMolaren_HK
dc.subject.meshPost and Core Techniqueen_HK
dc.subject.meshResin Cementsen_HK
dc.subject.meshTensile Strengthen_HK
dc.subject.meshTooth, Nonvitalen_HK
dc.titleInfluence of cavity configuration on the adhesion of two resin-based composites to pulpal floor dentinen_HK
dc.typeArticleen_HK
dc.identifier.emailBurrow, MF:mfburr58@hku.hken_HK
dc.identifier.authorityBurrow, MF=rp01306en_HK
dc.description.naturelink_to_subscribed_fulltext-
dc.identifier.pmid16296428en_HK
dc.identifier.scopuseid_2-s2.0-26944473252en_HK
dc.relation.referenceshttp://www.scopus.com/mlt/select.url?eid=2-s2.0-26944473252&selection=ref&src=s&origin=recordpageen_HK
dc.identifier.volume18en_HK
dc.identifier.issue4en_HK
dc.identifier.spage233en_HK
dc.identifier.epage236en_HK
dc.identifier.isiWOS:000236084200004-
dc.publisher.placeUnited Statesen_HK
dc.identifier.scopusauthoridAkagawa, H=7005767097en_HK
dc.identifier.scopusauthoridNikaido, T=7102059723en_HK
dc.identifier.scopusauthoridBurrow, MF=7005876730en_HK
dc.identifier.scopusauthoridTagami, J=7005967527en_HK

Export via OAI-PMH Interface in XML Formats


OR


Export to Other Non-XML Formats