Приказ основних података о документу
Shear Bond Strength to Enamel and Flexural Strength of Different Fiber-reinforced Composites
dc.creator | Juloski, Jelena | |
dc.creator | Beloica, Miloš | |
dc.creator | Goracci, Cecilia | |
dc.creator | Chieffi, Nicoletta | |
dc.creator | Giovannetti, Agostino | |
dc.creator | Vichi, Alessandro | |
dc.creator | Vulićević, Zoran | |
dc.creator | Ferrari, Marco | |
dc.date.accessioned | 2020-07-02T12:46:51Z | |
dc.date.available | 2020-07-02T12:46:51Z | |
dc.date.issued | 2013 | |
dc.identifier.issn | 1461-5185 | |
dc.identifier.uri | https://smile.stomf.bg.ac.rs/handle/123456789/1835 | |
dc.description.abstract | Purpose: To assess the shear bond strength to unground human enamel (ESBS) and flexural strength (FS) of different reinforcing fibers used in combination with a flowable composite resin. Materials and Methods: For ESBS testing, 90 human molars were selected and randomly divided into 9 groups (n = 10) according to the reinforcing fiber to be tested: 1. RTD Quartz Splint additionally impregnated at chair-side with Quartz Splint Resin (RTD); 2. RTD Quartz Splint without additional impregnation; 3. Ribbond- THM (Ribbond) impregnated with OptiBond FL Adhesive; 4: Ribbond Triaxial (Ribbond) impregnated with OptiBond FL Adhesive; 5. Connect (Kerr) impregnated with OptiBond FL Adhesive; 6. Construct (Kerr) impregnated with OptiBond FL Adhesive; 7. everStick PERIO (Stick Tech); 8. everStick C&B (Stick Tech); 9. nonreinforced composite Premise flowable (Kerr). Cylinders of flowable composite reinforced with the fibers were bonded to the intact buccal surface of the teeth. After 24 h of storage, shear loading was performed until failure occurred. FS was assessed performing three- point bending test according to ISO Standard 4049/2000. ESBS and FS data were analyzed using one- way ANOVA, followed by Tukey's HSD test for post- hoc comparisons (p lt 0.05). Results: For each group, the ESBS and FS, respectively, in MPa were: 1. 17.07 +/- 4.52 and 472.69 +/- 30.49; 2. 14.98 +/- 3.92 and 441.77 +/- 61.43; 3. 18.59 +/- 5.67 and 186.89 +/- 43.89; 4. 16.74 +/- 6.27 and 314.41 +/- 148.52; 5. 14.38 +/- 4.14 and 223.80 +/- 77.35; 6. 16.00 +/- 5.55 and 287.62 +/- 85.91; 7. 16.42 +/- 3.67 and 285.35 +/- 39.68; 8. 23.24 +/- 5.81 and 370.46 +/- 29.26; 9. 12.58 +/- 4.76 and 87.75 +/- 22.87. For most fibers, no significant difference in ESBS was found compared to the control group, except for everStick C&B, which yielded higher ESBS. Nonreinforced composite exhibited the lowest FS, while all fibers positively affected the FS. Conclusions: Fiber reinforcement of flowable composite does not affect its ESBS. The flexural strength of FRCs is significantly influenced by fiber composition and pattern. | en |
dc.publisher | Quintessence Publishing Co Inc, Hanover Park | |
dc.rights | restrictedAccess | |
dc.source | Journal of Adhesive Dentistry | |
dc.subject | fiber-reinforced composite | en |
dc.subject | bond strength | en |
dc.subject | enamel | en |
dc.subject | flexural strength | en |
dc.title | Shear Bond Strength to Enamel and Flexural Strength of Different Fiber-reinforced Composites | en |
dc.type | article | |
dc.rights.license | ARR | |
dcterms.abstract | Вулићевић, Зоран; Белоица, Милош; Јулоски, Јелена; Вицхи, Aлессандро; Гиованнетти, Aгостино; Цхиеффи, Ницолетта; Горацци, Цецилиа; Феррари, Марцо; | |
dc.citation.volume | 15 | |
dc.citation.issue | 2 | |
dc.citation.spage | 123 | |
dc.citation.epage | 130 | |
dc.citation.other | 15(2): 123-130 | |
dc.citation.rank | M22 | |
dc.identifier.wos | 000319168700004 | |
dc.identifier.doi | 10.3290/j.jad.a28362 | |
dc.identifier.pmid | 23534006 | |
dc.identifier.scopus | 2-s2.0-84879509418 | |
dc.type.version | publishedVersion |