| People | Locations | Statistics |
|---|---|---|
| Naji, M. |
| |
| Motta, Antonella |
| |
| Aletan, Dirar |
| |
| Mohamed, Tarek |
| |
| Ertürk, Emre |
| |
| Taccardi, Nicola |
| |
| Kononenko, Denys |
| |
| Petrov, R. H. | Madrid |
|
| Alshaaer, Mazen | Brussels |
|
| Bih, L. |
| |
| Casati, R. |
| |
| Muller, Hermance |
| |
| Kočí, Jan | Prague |
|
| Šuljagić, Marija |
| |
| Kalteremidou, Kalliopi-Artemi | Brussels |
|
| Azam, Siraj |
| |
| Ospanova, Alyiya |
| |
| Blanpain, Bart |
| |
| Ali, M. A. |
| |
| Popa, V. |
| |
| Rančić, M. |
| |
| Ollier, Nadège |
| |
| Azevedo, Nuno Monteiro |
| |
| Landes, Michael |
| |
| Rignanese, Gian-Marco |
|
De Munck, Jan
in Cooperation with on an Cooperation-Score of 37%
Topics
Publications (28/28 displayed)
- 2017Biofilm-induced changes to the composite surfacecitations
- 2017Residual compressive surface stress increases the bending strength of dental zirconiacitations
- 2016Influence of Light Irradiation Through Zirconia on the Degree of Conversion of Composite Cementscitations
- 2016Short fibre-reinforced composite for extensive direct restorations: a laboratory and computational assessment
- 2016Bonding Effectiveness of Luting Composites to Different CAD/CAM Materialscitations
- 2015Aging resistance of surface-treated dental zirconiacitations
- 2015Bonding Effectiveness to Differently Sandblasted Dental Zirconiacitations
- 2014Influence of sintering conditions on low-temperature degradation of dental zirconiacitations
- 2013Fracture toughness versus micro-tensile bond strength testing of adhesive-dentin interfaces.citations
- 2011Bonding effectiveness of luting composites to zirconia ceramics
- 2010Surface Roughness of Two Composites After Etching with Various Acids
- 2007Microrotary fatigue resistance of a HEMA-free all-in-one adhesive bonded to dentin
- 2007Effects of ceramic surface treatments on the bond strength of an adhesive luting agent to CAD-CAM ceramic
- 2007Microrotary fatigue resistance of a HEMA-free all-in-one adhesive bonded to dentin.
- 2006NaOCl degradation of a HEMA-free all-in-one adhesive bonded to enamel and dentin following two air-blowing techniques.citations
- 2006Bond strength of a mild self-etch adhesive with and without prior acid-etching
- 2005Effect of fracture strength of primer-adhesive mixture on bonding effectiveness
- 2005A critical review of the durability of adhesion to tooth tissue: methods and results
- 2005Micro-rotary Fatigue Resistance of a HEMA-free One-step Adhesive
- 2005Micro-tensile bond strength of adhesives bonded to Class-I cavity-bottom dentin after thermo-cycling.citations
- 2005A critical review of the durability of adhesion to tooth tissue: methods and results.citations
- 2005Micro-tensile bond strength of adhesives bonded to class-I cavity-bottom dentin after thermo-cycling
- 2005Fatigue resistance of dentin/composite interfaces with an additional intermediate elastic layer
- 2005Fatigue resistance of dentin/composite interfaces with an additional intermediate elastic layer.citations
- 2004Fatigue resistance of dentin/composite interfaces with an additional shock-absorbing layer
- 2004Bonding of an auto-adhesive luting material to enamel and dentin.citations
- 2003Microtensile bond strengths of an etch&rinse and self-etch adhesive to enamel and dentin as a function of surface treatment
- 2002Micro-tensile bond strength of two adhesives to Erbium:YAG-lased vs. bur-cut enamel and dentin.citations
Places of action
| Organizations | Location | People |
|---|
article
Fracture toughness versus micro-tensile bond strength testing of adhesive-dentin interfaces.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To assess interfacial fracture toughness of different adhesive approaches and compare to a standard micro-tensile bond-strength (μTBS) test. METHODS: Chevron-notched beam fracture toughness (CNB) was measured following a modified ISO 24370 standard. Composite bars with dimensions of 3.0×4.0×25 mm were prepared, with the adhesive-dentin interface in the middle. At the adhesive-dentin interface, a chevron notch was prepared using a 0.15 mm thin diamond blade mounted in a water-cooled diamond saw. Each specimen was loaded until failure in a 4-point bend test setup and the fracture toughness was calculated according to the ISO specifications. Similarly, adhesive-dentin micro-specimens (1.0×1.0×8-10 mm) were stressed in tensile until failure to determine the μTBS. RESULTS: A positive correlation (r(2)=0.64) was observed between CNB and μTBS, which however was only nearly statistically significant, mainly due to the dissimilar outcome of Scotchbond Universal (3M ESPE). While few μTBS specimens failed at the adhesive-dentin interface, almost all CNB specimens failed interfacially at the notch tip. Weibull moduli for interfacial fracture toughness were much higher than for μTBS (3.8-11.5 versus 2.7-4.8, respectively), especially relevant with regard to early failures. SIGNIFICANCE: Although the ranking of the adhesives on their bonding effectiveness tested using CNB and μTBS corresponded well, the outcome of CNB appeared more reliable and less variable. Fracture toughness measurement is however more laborious and requires specific equipment. The μTBS nevertheless appeared to remain a valid method to assess bonding effectiveness in a versatile way.