File Download
There are no files associated with this item.
Links for fulltext
(May Require Subscription)
- Publisher Website: 10.1111/j.1834-7819.2012.01704.x
- Scopus: eid_2-s2.0-84865750384
- PMID: 22924355
- WOS: WOS:000307939000010
- Find via
Supplementary
- Citations:
- Appears in Collections:
Article: Relationship between composite fracture toughness and bond strengths to enamel and dentine
Title | Relationship between composite fracture toughness and bond strengths to enamel and dentine |
---|---|
Authors | |
Keywords | Bond strength Fracture toughness Microshear Microtensile Resin composites |
Issue Date | 2012 |
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, 2012, v. 57 n. 3, p. 319-324 How to Cite? |
Abstract | Background: This study aimed to evaluate the association between the fracture toughness of two nanofilled-hybrid resin composites (Clearfil Majesty Esthetic [CME], Kuraray Medical, Japan; Estelite Σ [ES], Tokuyama, Japan) and their bond strengths to enamel and dentine mediated by a self-etching primer system (Clearfil SE Bond [CSE]; Kuraray). Methods: Twenty-four permanent human molars were sectioned into enamel and dentine specimens and finished with 600-grit silicon carbide paper, bonded with CSE and either CME or ES, for μ-shear bond strength (μSBS) and μ-tensile bond strength (μTBS). The specimens were tested until failure at a cross-head speed of 1 mm/min, failure loads recorded, bond strengths calculated and results analysed using independent samples t-tests. Eight single-notched bar-shaped specimens, 30 mm × 5.2 mm × 2.2 mm, were prepared for each resin composite and fracture toughness measured using four-point bending at a cross-head speed of 0.5 mm/min. Results were analysed using independent samples t-tests. Results: For μSBS and μTBS, there was no significant difference between the resin composites for enamel or dentine. The fracture toughness of CME was significantly higher than that of ES. Conclusions: For both enamel and dentine, resin composite fracture toughness affected neither μTBS nor μSBS to enamel or dentine. © 2012 Australian Dental Association. |
Description | Scientific article |
Persistent Identifier | http://hdl.handle.net/10722/152613 |
ISSN | 2023 Impact Factor: 1.9 2023 SCImago Journal Rankings: 0.597 |
ISI Accession Number ID |
DC Field | Value | Language |
---|---|---|
dc.contributor.author | Adebayo, OA | en_US |
dc.contributor.author | Burrow, MF | en_US |
dc.contributor.author | Tyas, MJ | en_US |
dc.date.accessioned | 2012-07-16T09:43:44Z | - |
dc.date.available | 2012-07-16T09:43:44Z | - |
dc.date.issued | 2012 | en_US |
dc.identifier.citation | Australian Dental Journal, 2012, v. 57 n. 3, p. 319-324 | en_US |
dc.identifier.issn | 0045-0421 | - |
dc.identifier.uri | http://hdl.handle.net/10722/152613 | - |
dc.description | Scientific article | - |
dc.description.abstract | Background: This study aimed to evaluate the association between the fracture toughness of two nanofilled-hybrid resin composites (Clearfil Majesty Esthetic [CME], Kuraray Medical, Japan; Estelite Σ [ES], Tokuyama, Japan) and their bond strengths to enamel and dentine mediated by a self-etching primer system (Clearfil SE Bond [CSE]; Kuraray). Methods: Twenty-four permanent human molars were sectioned into enamel and dentine specimens and finished with 600-grit silicon carbide paper, bonded with CSE and either CME or ES, for μ-shear bond strength (μSBS) and μ-tensile bond strength (μTBS). The specimens were tested until failure at a cross-head speed of 1 mm/min, failure loads recorded, bond strengths calculated and results analysed using independent samples t-tests. Eight single-notched bar-shaped specimens, 30 mm × 5.2 mm × 2.2 mm, were prepared for each resin composite and fracture toughness measured using four-point bending at a cross-head speed of 0.5 mm/min. Results were analysed using independent samples t-tests. Results: For μSBS and μTBS, there was no significant difference between the resin composites for enamel or dentine. The fracture toughness of CME was significantly higher than that of ES. Conclusions: For both enamel and dentine, resin composite fracture toughness affected neither μTBS nor μSBS to enamel or dentine. © 2012 Australian Dental Association. | - |
dc.language | eng | en_US |
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_US |
dc.relation.ispartof | Australian Dental Journal | en_US |
dc.rights | The definitive version is available at www3.interscience.wiley.com | - |
dc.subject | Bond strength | - |
dc.subject | Fracture toughness | - |
dc.subject | Microshear | - |
dc.subject | Microtensile | - |
dc.subject | Resin composites | - |
dc.title | Relationship between composite fracture toughness and bond strengths to enamel and dentine | en_US |
dc.type | Article | en_US |
dc.identifier.email | Adebayo, OA: olabisi.adebayo@utoronto.ca | en_US |
dc.identifier.email | Burrow, MF: mfburr58@hku.hk | - |
dc.identifier.authority | Burrow, MF=rp01306 | en_US |
dc.description.nature | link_to_subscribed_fulltext | - |
dc.identifier.doi | 10.1111/j.1834-7819.2012.01704.x | - |
dc.identifier.pmid | 22924355 | - |
dc.identifier.scopus | eid_2-s2.0-84865750384 | - |
dc.identifier.hkuros | 201803 | en_US |
dc.identifier.volume | 57 | en_US |
dc.identifier.issue | 3 | - |
dc.identifier.spage | 319 | en_US |
dc.identifier.epage | 324 | en_US |
dc.identifier.isi | WOS:000307939000010 | - |
dc.publisher.place | United Kingdom | - |
dc.identifier.issnl | 0045-0421 | - |