Journal of prosthodontics : official journal of the American College of Prosthodontists · 2021
Comparative Effect of Different Surface Treatments on the Shear Bond Strength of Two Types of Artificial Teeth Bonded To Two Types of Denture Base Resins.
СтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Helal Mohamed A, Al-Gazzar Ahmed E, Abas Mohamed, Akhtar Sultan, Gad Mohammed M, Al-Thobity Ahmad M
Аннотация
PURPOSE: This in vitro study aims to assess the impact of various surface treatments on the shear bond strength (SBS) of two types of artificial teeth and denture base resins (DBRs).
MATERIALS AND METHODS: Two types of DBRs (CAD/CAM-milled and heat-polymerized) and two types of denture teeth (acrylic and composite) were investigated. Teeth were cut into slices (5 × 5 × 2 mm) and divided according to surface treatment into four subgroups (n = 10): no treatment (control), air abrasion (Alumina-blasting; AB), bur roughening, and dichloromethane (DCM) subgroups. According to manufacturer recommendations, the treated tooth slices were bonded to the acrylic disk of DBRs. The SBS test was performed using a universal testing machine. ANOVA was used for results analysis followed by Tukey's post hoc tests (α = 0.05).
RESULTS: DCM and AB increased the SBS of acrylic teeth to heat-polymerized DBR compared with other groups (p < 0.001). All surface treatments showed no significant difference in CAD/CAM DBR with acrylic teeth (p = 0.059; AB, p = 0.319; bur roughening, p = 0.895; DCM), while there was a significant decrease in SBS with composite teeth (p ˂ 0.001). Between teeth, acrylic teeth showed a statistically significant increase in SBS compared to composite teeth (p < 0.001).
CONCLUSION: AB and DCM application improved the SBS for acrylic teeth with the heat-polymerized DBR when compared with the untreated group, but none of the surface treatment agents showed significant improvement with CAD/CAM DBR. All surface treatment agents reduced the SBS for composite teeth with CAD/CAM DBR while AB only increased the SBS with heat-polymerized DBR.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: Two types of DBRs (CAD/CAM-milled and heat-polymerized) and two types of denture teeth (acrylic and composite) were investigated. Teeth were cut into slices (5 × 5 × 2 mm) and divided according to surface treatment into four subgroups (n = 10): no treatment (control), air abrasion (Alumina-blasting; AB), bur roughening, and dichloromethane (DCM) subgroups. According to manufacturer recommendations, the treated tooth slices were bonded to the acrylic disk of DBRs. The SBS test was performed using a universal testing machine. ANOVA was used for results analysis followed by Tukey's post hoc tests (α = 0.05).
RESULTS: DCM and AB increased the SBS of acrylic teeth to heat-polymerized DBR compared with other groups (p < 0.001). All surface treatments showed no significant difference in CAD/CAM DBR with acrylic teeth (p = 0.059; AB, p = 0.319; bur roughening, p = 0.895; DCM), while there was a significant decrease in SBS with composite teeth (p ˂ 0.001). Between teeth, acrylic teeth showed a statistically significant increase in SBS compared to composite teeth (p < 0.001).
CONCLUSION: AB and DCM application improved the SBS for acrylic teeth with the heat-polymerized DBR when compared with the untreated group, but none of the surface treatment agents showed significant improvement with CAD/CAM DBR. All surface treatment agents reduced the SBS for composite teeth with CAD/CAM DBR while AB only increased the SBS with heat-polymerized DBR.