File Download
There are no files associated with this item.
Links for fulltext
(May Require Subscription)
- Publisher Website: 10.1111/j.1834-7819.2006.tb00421.x
- Scopus: eid_2-s2.0-33745911925
- PMID: 16848265
- WOS: WOS:000238904800010
- Find via
Supplementary
- Citations:
- Appears in Collections:
Article: Resin adhesion to caries-affected dentine after different removal methods
Title | Resin adhesion to caries-affected dentine after different removal methods |
---|---|
Authors | |
Keywords | Chemicals And Cas Registry Numbers |
Issue Date | 2006 |
Publisher | Wiley-Blackwell Publishing Ltd.. The Journal's web site is located at http://www.wiley.com/bw/journal.asp?ref=0045-0421 |
Citation | Australian Dental Journal, 2006, v. 51 n. 2, p. 162-169 How to Cite? |
Abstract | Background: Caries-affected dentine is the common bonding substrate when treating a patient. At present, there are many methods used for caries removal. The aim of this study was to evaluate the microtensile bond strength of two adhesives (Clearfil Protect Bond and OptiBond Solo Plus Total-Etch) to caries-affected dentine after three different caries removal methods. Methods: Extracted carious human third molars were used and caries-affected dentine surfaces were obtained from one of the three removal methods: (i) round steel bur in a slow-speed handpiece; (ii) Er:YAG laser; or (iii) 600-grit silicon carbide abrasive paper. Each of the adhesives was used to bond resin composite to the caries-affected dentine according to the manufacturers' instructions. Hourglass-shaped specimens were prepared and stressed in tension at 1mm/min. Data were analysed using two-way analysis of variance and least significant difference test. Results: Clearfil Protect Bond showed significantly lower bond strength than OptiBond Solo Plus Total-Etch after caries removal with round steel bur, but the opposite was found for specimens treated with silicon carbide abrasive paper. For laser-treated dentine, no significant differences between the adhesives were revealed. Conclusions: Besides the differences in adhesives, different caries removal methods seem to influence resin adhesion to caries-affected dentine. |
Persistent Identifier | http://hdl.handle.net/10722/90656 |
ISSN | 2023 Impact Factor: 1.9 2023 SCImago Journal Rankings: 0.597 |
ISI Accession Number ID | |
References |
DC Field | Value | Language |
---|---|---|
dc.contributor.author | Sattabanasuk, V | en_HK |
dc.contributor.author | Burrow, MF | en_HK |
dc.contributor.author | Shimada, Y | en_HK |
dc.contributor.author | Tagami, J | en_HK |
dc.date.accessioned | 2010-09-17T10:06:20Z | - |
dc.date.available | 2010-09-17T10:06:20Z | - |
dc.date.issued | 2006 | en_HK |
dc.identifier.citation | Australian Dental Journal, 2006, v. 51 n. 2, p. 162-169 | en_HK |
dc.identifier.issn | 0045-0421 | en_HK |
dc.identifier.uri | http://hdl.handle.net/10722/90656 | - |
dc.description.abstract | Background: Caries-affected dentine is the common bonding substrate when treating a patient. At present, there are many methods used for caries removal. The aim of this study was to evaluate the microtensile bond strength of two adhesives (Clearfil Protect Bond and OptiBond Solo Plus Total-Etch) to caries-affected dentine after three different caries removal methods. Methods: Extracted carious human third molars were used and caries-affected dentine surfaces were obtained from one of the three removal methods: (i) round steel bur in a slow-speed handpiece; (ii) Er:YAG laser; or (iii) 600-grit silicon carbide abrasive paper. Each of the adhesives was used to bond resin composite to the caries-affected dentine according to the manufacturers' instructions. Hourglass-shaped specimens were prepared and stressed in tension at 1mm/min. Data were analysed using two-way analysis of variance and least significant difference test. Results: Clearfil Protect Bond showed significantly lower bond strength than OptiBond Solo Plus Total-Etch after caries removal with round steel bur, but the opposite was found for specimens treated with silicon carbide abrasive paper. For laser-treated dentine, no significant differences between the adhesives were revealed. Conclusions: Besides the differences in adhesives, different caries removal methods seem to influence resin adhesion to caries-affected dentine. | en_HK |
dc.language | eng | en_HK |
dc.publisher | Wiley-Blackwell Publishing Ltd.. The Journal's web site is located at http://www.wiley.com/bw/journal.asp?ref=0045-0421 | en_HK |
dc.relation.ispartof | Australian Dental Journal | en_HK |
dc.subject | Chemicals And Cas Registry Numbers | en_HK |
dc.subject.mesh | Analysis of Variance | en_HK |
dc.subject.mesh | Chi-Square Distribution | en_HK |
dc.subject.mesh | Dental Caries - therapy | en_HK |
dc.subject.mesh | Dentin - chemistry | en_HK |
dc.subject.mesh | Dentin-Bonding Agents - chemistry | en_HK |
dc.subject.mesh | Humans | en_HK |
dc.subject.mesh | Laser Therapy | en_HK |
dc.subject.mesh | Methacrylates - chemistry | en_HK |
dc.subject.mesh | Statistics, Nonparametric | en_HK |
dc.subject.mesh | Tooth Preparation - methods | en_HK |
dc.title | Resin adhesion to caries-affected dentine after different removal methods | en_HK |
dc.type | Article | en_HK |
dc.identifier.email | Burrow, MF:mfburr58@hku.hk | en_HK |
dc.identifier.authority | Burrow, MF=rp01306 | en_HK |
dc.description.nature | link_to_subscribed_fulltext | - |
dc.identifier.doi | 10.1111/j.1834-7819.2006.tb00421.x | - |
dc.identifier.pmid | 16848265 | - |
dc.identifier.scopus | eid_2-s2.0-33745911925 | en_HK |
dc.relation.references | http://www.scopus.com/mlt/select.url?eid=2-s2.0-33745911925&selection=ref&src=s&origin=recordpage | en_HK |
dc.identifier.volume | 51 | en_HK |
dc.identifier.issue | 2 | en_HK |
dc.identifier.spage | 162 | en_HK |
dc.identifier.epage | 169 | en_HK |
dc.identifier.isi | WOS:000238904800010 | - |
dc.publisher.place | United Kingdom | en_HK |
dc.identifier.scopusauthorid | Sattabanasuk, V=8863191100 | en_HK |
dc.identifier.scopusauthorid | Burrow, MF=7005876730 | en_HK |
dc.identifier.scopusauthorid | Shimada, Y=7402123770 | en_HK |
dc.identifier.scopusauthorid | Tagami, J=7005967527 | en_HK |
dc.identifier.issnl | 0045-0421 | - |