File Download

There are no files associated with this item.

  Links for fulltext
     (May Require Subscription)
Supplementary

Article: Bonding of amalgam and a gallium alloy to bovine dentin

TitleBonding of amalgam and a gallium alloy to bovine dentin
Authors
KeywordsChemicals And Cas Registry Numbers
Issue Date1998
PublisherOperative Dentistry. The Journal's web site is located at http://www.jopdent.org
Citation
Operative Dentistry, 1998, v. 23 n. 4, p. 195-202 How to Cite?
AbstractThe shear bond strengths of an amalgam (Permite C) and a gallium alloy (Galloy) to dentin, mediated by four dentin adhesives (Super-Bond D-Liner, Super-Bond D-Liner II, Paama 2, and Panavia 21), were investigated. Flat labial dentin surfaces were prepared from bovine lower incisor teeth. A 3 mm-in-diameter area of dentin was bonded according to each manufacturer's directions before placement of Permite C or Galloy. The bonds were stressed in shear at a crosshead speed of 1 mm/min. The mean shear bond strengths were analyzed using one-way ANOVA and Student's t-test, and fracture modes were assessed under X20 magnification and analyzed using Kruskal-Wallis and Mann-Whitney U tests. Scanning electron micrographs were taken of the bond interface of separate samples. The results showed no significant difference among the bond strengths of Super-Bond D-Liner (2.79 MPa, 2.69 MPa), Super-Bond D-Liner II (3.41 MPa, 2.65 MPa), and Paama 2 (0.70 MPa, 0.50 MPa) bonded to Permite C and Galloy (respective values in parentheses); however, Panavia gave a significantly better bond with Permite C (0.42 MPa) than with Galloy (0 MPa). Super-Bond D-Liner and Super-Bond D-Liner II gave stronger bonds than Paama 2 and Panavia with both Permite C and Galloy. For each dentin adhesive, there was no difference in fracture mode between Permite C and Galloy. It was concluded that, since all bond strengths were very low, none of the dentin adhesives tested would enhance the clinical retention of Permite C or Galloy. However, although the use of Paama 2 with Galloy was originally recommended by the manufacturer for dentin sealing purposes, no adhesion was claimed.
Persistent Identifierhttp://hdl.handle.net/10722/90663
ISSN
2015 Impact Factor: 2.819
2015 SCImago Journal Rankings: 0.641
ISI Accession Number ID
References

 

DC FieldValueLanguage
dc.contributor.authorPhrukkanon, Sen_HK
dc.contributor.authorBurrow, MFen_HK
dc.contributor.authorTyas, MJen_HK
dc.date.accessioned2010-09-17T10:06:26Z-
dc.date.available2010-09-17T10:06:26Z-
dc.date.issued1998en_HK
dc.identifier.citationOperative Dentistry, 1998, v. 23 n. 4, p. 195-202en_HK
dc.identifier.issn0361-7734en_HK
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/10722/90663-
dc.description.abstractThe shear bond strengths of an amalgam (Permite C) and a gallium alloy (Galloy) to dentin, mediated by four dentin adhesives (Super-Bond D-Liner, Super-Bond D-Liner II, Paama 2, and Panavia 21), were investigated. Flat labial dentin surfaces were prepared from bovine lower incisor teeth. A 3 mm-in-diameter area of dentin was bonded according to each manufacturer's directions before placement of Permite C or Galloy. The bonds were stressed in shear at a crosshead speed of 1 mm/min. The mean shear bond strengths were analyzed using one-way ANOVA and Student's t-test, and fracture modes were assessed under X20 magnification and analyzed using Kruskal-Wallis and Mann-Whitney U tests. Scanning electron micrographs were taken of the bond interface of separate samples. The results showed no significant difference among the bond strengths of Super-Bond D-Liner (2.79 MPa, 2.69 MPa), Super-Bond D-Liner II (3.41 MPa, 2.65 MPa), and Paama 2 (0.70 MPa, 0.50 MPa) bonded to Permite C and Galloy (respective values in parentheses); however, Panavia gave a significantly better bond with Permite C (0.42 MPa) than with Galloy (0 MPa). Super-Bond D-Liner and Super-Bond D-Liner II gave stronger bonds than Paama 2 and Panavia with both Permite C and Galloy. For each dentin adhesive, there was no difference in fracture mode between Permite C and Galloy. It was concluded that, since all bond strengths were very low, none of the dentin adhesives tested would enhance the clinical retention of Permite C or Galloy. However, although the use of Paama 2 with Galloy was originally recommended by the manufacturer for dentin sealing purposes, no adhesion was claimed.en_HK
dc.languageengen_HK
dc.publisherOperative Dentistry. The Journal's web site is located at http://www.jopdent.orgen_HK
dc.relation.ispartofOperative Dentistryen_HK
dc.subjectChemicals And Cas Registry Numbersen_HK
dc.subject.meshAnimalsen_HK
dc.subject.meshCattleen_HK
dc.subject.meshDental Alloysen_HK
dc.subject.meshDental Amalgamen_HK
dc.subject.meshDental Bonding - methodsen_HK
dc.subject.meshDentin-Bonding Agentsen_HK
dc.subject.meshMaterials Testingen_HK
dc.subject.meshMethacrylatesen_HK
dc.subject.meshPhosphatesen_HK
dc.subject.meshResin Cementsen_HK
dc.subject.meshStatistics, Nonparametricen_HK
dc.titleBonding of amalgam and a gallium alloy to bovine 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.pmid9760922-
dc.identifier.scopuseid_2-s2.0-0032110286en_HK
dc.relation.referenceshttp://www.scopus.com/mlt/select.url?eid=2-s2.0-0032110286&selection=ref&src=s&origin=recordpageen_HK
dc.identifier.volume23en_HK
dc.identifier.issue4en_HK
dc.identifier.spage195en_HK
dc.identifier.epage202en_HK
dc.identifier.isiWOS:000074869100007-
dc.publisher.placeUnited Statesen_HK
dc.identifier.scopusauthoridPhrukkanon, S=8837113100en_HK
dc.identifier.scopusauthoridBurrow, MF=7005876730en_HK
dc.identifier.scopusauthoridTyas, MJ=7006088443en_HK

Export via OAI-PMH Interface in XML Formats


OR


Export to Other Non-XML Formats