Effects of different surface treatments on shear bond strength in two different ceramic systems

Basit Öğe Kaydı
dc.contributor.authorYavuz, Tevfik
dc.contributor.authorDilber, Erhan
dc.contributor.authorKara, Haluk Baris
dc.contributor.authorTuncdemir, Ali Riza
dc.contributor.authorOzturk, A. Nilgun
dc.date.accessioned2020-03-26T18:41:42Z
dc.date.available2020-03-26T18:41:42Z
dc.date.issued2013
dc.departmentSelçuk Üniversitesien_US
dc.description.abstractThe purpose of this study was to evaluate the influence of different surface treatments (sandblasting, acid etching, and laser irradiation) on the shear bond strength of lithium disilicate-based core (IPS Empress 2) and feldspathic ceramics (VITA VM 9). One hundred ceramic discs were divided into two groups of 50 discs each for two ceramic systems: IPS Empress 2 (group I) and VITA VM 9 (group II). Each of the two groups was further divided into five surface treatment groups (ten each) as follows: group SB, sandblasting with alumina particles (50 mu m); group HF, 5 % hydrofluoric acid etching; group L, Er:YAG laser irradiation (distance, 1 mm; 500 mJ; 20 Hz; 10 W; manually, noncontact R14 handpiece); group SB-L, sandblasting + Er:YAG laser; and group HF-L, 5 % hydrofluoric acid + Er:YAG laser. Luting cement (Panavia 2.0) was bonded to the ceramic specimens using Teflon tubes. After 24 h of water storage, a shear bond strength test was performed using a universal testing machine at a crosshead speed of 0.5 mm/min. The data were analyzed with a two-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) and Tukey's honestly significant difference tests (alpha = 0.05). The two-way ANOVA indicated that the shear bond strength was significantly affected by the surface treatment methods (p < 0.05), but there was no significant interaction between the ceramic systems. Group SB-L had the highest mean values for each ceramic system. Sandblasting, followed by Er:YAG laser irradiation, enhanced the bond strength, indicating its potential use as an alternative method. The atomic force microscopic evaluation revealed that group SB had the most distinct sharp peaks among the groups.en_US
dc.identifier.doi10.1007/s10103-012-1201-5en_US
dc.identifier.endpage1239en_US
dc.identifier.issn0268-8921en_US
dc.identifier.issn1435-604Xen_US
dc.identifier.issue5en_US
dc.identifier.pmid22971913en_US
dc.identifier.scopusqualityQ2en_US
dc.identifier.startpage1233en_US
dc.identifier.urihttps://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10103-012-1201-5
dc.identifier.urihttps://hdl.handle.net/20.500.12395/29440
dc.identifier.volume28en_US
dc.identifier.wosWOS:000323742200003en_US
dc.identifier.wosqualityQ1en_US
dc.indekslendigikaynakWeb of Scienceen_US
dc.indekslendigikaynakScopusen_US
dc.indekslendigikaynakPubMeden_US
dc.language.isoenen_US
dc.publisherSPRINGER LONDON LTDen_US
dc.relation.ispartofLASERS IN MEDICAL SCIENCEen_US
dc.relation.publicationcategoryMakale - Uluslararası Hakemli Dergi - Kurum Öğretim Elemanıen_US
dc.rightsinfo:eu-repo/semantics/closedAccessen_US
dc.selcuk20240510_oaigen_US
dc.subjectBond strengthen_US
dc.subjectLuting cementsen_US
dc.subjectSurface treatmenten_US
dc.subjectCeramicen_US
dc.subjectEr:YAGen_US
dc.titleEffects of different surface treatments on shear bond strength in two different ceramic systemsen_US
dc.typeArticleen_US

Dosyalar

Koleksiyon

WoS İndeksli Yayınlar Koleksiyonu
PubMed İndeksli Yayın Koleksiyonu
Scopus İndeksli Yayınlar Koleksiyonu