Show simple item record

Authordc.contributor.authorSiqueira, Fabiana 
Authordc.contributor.authorMillán Cárdenas, Andrés 
Authordc.contributor.authorGutiérrez Reyes, Mario 
Authordc.contributor.authorMalaquías, Pamela 
Authordc.contributor.authorHass, Viviane 
Authordc.contributor.authorReis, Alessandra 
Authordc.contributor.authorLoguercio, Alessandro D. 
Authordc.contributor.authorPerdigao, Jorge 
Admission datedc.date.accessioned2016-12-27T15:31:43Z
Available datedc.date.available2016-12-27T15:31:43Z
Publication datedc.date.issued2016
Cita de ítemdc.identifier.citationJ Adhes Dent 2016; 18: 1–10es_ES
Identifierdc.identifier.other10.3290/j.jad.a36519
Identifierdc.identifier.urihttps://repositorio.uchile.cl/handle/2250/142127
Abstractdc.description.abstractPurpose: To evaluate the microshear bond strength (pSBS) of several universal adhesive systems applied on five different indirect restorative materials. Materials and Methods: Five CAD/CAM materials were selected: 1) indirect resin composite (LAV); 2) feldspathic glass ceramic (VTR); 3) leucite-reinforced glass-ceramic (EMP); 4) lithium disilicate ceramic (EMX); 5) yttrium-stabilized zirconium dioxide (CZI). For each material, 15 blocks were cut into 4 rectangular sections (6 x 6 x 6 mm) (n = 60 per group), and processed as recommended by the respective manufacturer. For each indirect material, the following adhesive systems were applied according to the respective manufacturer's instructions: 1) AdheSE Universal [ADU]; 2) All-Bond Universal (ABU); 3) Ambar Universal (AMB); 4) Clearfil Universal (CFU); 5) Futurabond U (FBU); 6) One Coat 7 Universal (OCU); 7) Peak Universal Bond (PUB); 8) Prime&Bond Elect (PBE); 9) Scotchbond Universal Adhesive (SBU); 10) Xeno Select (XEN, negative control). After the application of the adhesive system, cylinder-shaped transparent matrices were filled with a dual-curing resin cement (NX3) and light cured. Specimens were stored in water (37 degrees C for 24 h) and tested in shear mode at 1.0 mm/min (mSBS). The failure pattern and pSBS were statistically evaluated (a = 0.05). Results: LAV, VTR, and EMP showed a greater number of cohesive fractures than EMX and CZI (p < 0.0001). PUB was the only adhesive for which the mean pSBS reached the highest ranking of statistical significance for all five substrates. When each adhesive was compared across the five substrates, 8 out of 10 (ADU, ABU, AMB, CFU, OCU, PUB, PBE, and SBU) reached the statistically highest mean pSBS when applied on CZI. Conclusion: The specific chemical composition of universal adhesives was not the decisive factor in the bond strength values measured for different CAD/CAM indirect materials. There was a wide variability in mean pSBS when different universal adhesives were applied to the several CAD/CAM indirect materials. Most universal adhesives bonded well to air-abraded zirconia.es_ES
Patrocinadordc.description.sponsorshipNational Council for Scientific and Technological Development (CNPq) 301937/2009-5 301891/2010-9es_ES
Lenguagedc.language.isoenes_ES
Publisherdc.publisherQuintessence Publishinges_ES
Type of licensedc.rightsAttribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs 3.0 Chile*
Link to Licensedc.rights.urihttp://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/3.0/cl/*
Sourcedc.sourceJournal of Adhesive Dentistryes_ES
Keywordsdc.subjectResin cementes_ES
Keywordsdc.subjectUniversal dentin adhesivees_ES
Keywordsdc.subjectCAD/CAM restorative materialses_ES
Keywordsdc.subjectBond strengthes_ES
Títulodc.titleLaboratory Performance of Universal Adhesive Systems for Luting CAD/CAM Restorative Materialses_ES
Document typedc.typeArtículo de revista
Catalogueruchile.catalogadorlajes_ES
Indexationuchile.indexArtículo de publicación ISIes_ES


Files in this item

Icon

This item appears in the following Collection(s)

Show simple item record

Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs 3.0 Chile
Except where otherwise noted, this item's license is described as Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs 3.0 Chile