比较两种口腔内瓷修复系统在修复内聚性骨折和粘接性骨折时的剪切结合强度:一项体外研究

J. Yadav, Nupur Dabas, A. Bhargava, P. Malhotra, B. Yadav, M. Sehgal
{"title":"比较两种口腔内瓷修复系统在修复内聚性骨折和粘接性骨折时的剪切结合强度:一项体外研究","authors":"J. Yadav, Nupur Dabas, A. Bhargava, P. Malhotra, B. Yadav, M. Sehgal","doi":"10.4103/jips.jips_120_19","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Aim: The objective of research was to evaluate the shear bond strength of two commercially available intraoral porcelain repair systems, Clearfil repair system (Kuraray) and P and R repair system (Shofu) for repairing cohesive and adhesive fracture in metal-ceramic restorations. Settings and Design: In vivo – comparative study. Materials and Methods: Ninety samples of Nickel–Chromium metal discs were fabricated. Each disc was veneered with 2 mm thickness of ceramic material using custom made metal jig. Samples were divided into control (Group I n = 10) and two test groups (Group II n = 40 and Group III n = 40). Adhesive and cohesive fractures were created in test group samples, Group II (Ceramic substrate or cohesive defect) and Group III (metal substrate or adhesive defect). The samples of ceramic substrate (Group II) and metal substrate (Group III) were further subdivided into A and B containing 20 samples each according to the repair material used (A; Clearfil porcelain repair system and B; P and R porcelain repair system). All specimens were subjected to a standard shear load in the UTM until fracture occurred. Data were analyzed using one-way analysis of variance and post hoc Bonferroni test. Statistical Analysis used: One-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) and post hoc Bonferroni test. Results: Clearfil repair system showed significantly higher shear bond strength value (29.16 Mpa) as compared to P and R repair system (27.23 Mpa) for cohesive fractures. Whereas if compared for repairing adhesive fractures P and R repair system had significantly higher shear bond strength values (26.59 Mpa) than Clearfil repair system (25.74 Mpa). Conclusions: From the present study, it was be concluded that for cohesive fracture Clearfil repair system is a better material and for adhesive fractures P and R repair material gives better results.","PeriodicalId":22708,"journal":{"name":"The Journal of the Indian Prosthodontic Society","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2019-10-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"7","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Comparing two intraoral porcelain repair systems for shear bond strength in repaired cohesive and adhesive fractures, for porcelain-fused-to-metal restorations: An in vitro study\",\"authors\":\"J. Yadav, Nupur Dabas, A. Bhargava, P. Malhotra, B. Yadav, M. Sehgal\",\"doi\":\"10.4103/jips.jips_120_19\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Aim: The objective of research was to evaluate the shear bond strength of two commercially available intraoral porcelain repair systems, Clearfil repair system (Kuraray) and P and R repair system (Shofu) for repairing cohesive and adhesive fracture in metal-ceramic restorations. Settings and Design: In vivo – comparative study. Materials and Methods: Ninety samples of Nickel–Chromium metal discs were fabricated. Each disc was veneered with 2 mm thickness of ceramic material using custom made metal jig. Samples were divided into control (Group I n = 10) and two test groups (Group II n = 40 and Group III n = 40). Adhesive and cohesive fractures were created in test group samples, Group II (Ceramic substrate or cohesive defect) and Group III (metal substrate or adhesive defect). The samples of ceramic substrate (Group II) and metal substrate (Group III) were further subdivided into A and B containing 20 samples each according to the repair material used (A; Clearfil porcelain repair system and B; P and R porcelain repair system). All specimens were subjected to a standard shear load in the UTM until fracture occurred. Data were analyzed using one-way analysis of variance and post hoc Bonferroni test. Statistical Analysis used: One-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) and post hoc Bonferroni test. Results: Clearfil repair system showed significantly higher shear bond strength value (29.16 Mpa) as compared to P and R repair system (27.23 Mpa) for cohesive fractures. Whereas if compared for repairing adhesive fractures P and R repair system had significantly higher shear bond strength values (26.59 Mpa) than Clearfil repair system (25.74 Mpa). Conclusions: From the present study, it was be concluded that for cohesive fracture Clearfil repair system is a better material and for adhesive fractures P and R repair material gives better results.\",\"PeriodicalId\":22708,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"The Journal of the Indian Prosthodontic Society\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2019-10-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"7\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"The Journal of the Indian Prosthodontic Society\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.4103/jips.jips_120_19\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"The Journal of the Indian Prosthodontic Society","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.4103/jips.jips_120_19","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 7

摘要

目的:研究两种市售的口腔内瓷修复系统,Clearfil修复系统(Kuraray)和P and R修复系统(Shofu)在修复金属陶瓷修复体的内聚性和粘连性骨折中的剪切结合强度。设置和设计:体内比较研究。材料与方法:制备了90个镍铬金属盘样品。每个圆盘贴面2毫米厚度的陶瓷材料使用定制的金属夹具。样本分为对照组(I组n = 10)和试验组(II组n = 40, III组n = 40)。在试验组样品、II组(陶瓷基材或粘合缺陷)和III组(金属基材或粘合缺陷)中创建粘合和粘合断裂。陶瓷基板(II组)和金属基板(III组)的样品根据使用的修复材料进一步细分为A和B,各含20个样品(A;Clearfil瓷修复系统和B;P和R瓷修复系统)。所有试件均在UTM中承受标准剪切载荷,直至发生断裂。数据分析采用单因素方差分析和事后Bonferroni检验。统计分析采用单因素方差分析(ANOVA)和事后Bonferroni检验。结果:Clearfil修复体系对黏结性骨折的剪切强度值(29.16 Mpa)明显高于P和R修复体系(27.23 Mpa)。而对于黏着性骨折的修复,P和R修复体系的剪切强度值(26.59 Mpa)明显高于Clearfil修复体系(25.74 Mpa)。结论:通过本研究得出,Clearfil修复体系对于粘连性骨折是较好的材料,对于粘连性骨折P和R修复材料效果较好。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Comparing two intraoral porcelain repair systems for shear bond strength in repaired cohesive and adhesive fractures, for porcelain-fused-to-metal restorations: An in vitro study
Aim: The objective of research was to evaluate the shear bond strength of two commercially available intraoral porcelain repair systems, Clearfil repair system (Kuraray) and P and R repair system (Shofu) for repairing cohesive and adhesive fracture in metal-ceramic restorations. Settings and Design: In vivo – comparative study. Materials and Methods: Ninety samples of Nickel–Chromium metal discs were fabricated. Each disc was veneered with 2 mm thickness of ceramic material using custom made metal jig. Samples were divided into control (Group I n = 10) and two test groups (Group II n = 40 and Group III n = 40). Adhesive and cohesive fractures were created in test group samples, Group II (Ceramic substrate or cohesive defect) and Group III (metal substrate or adhesive defect). The samples of ceramic substrate (Group II) and metal substrate (Group III) were further subdivided into A and B containing 20 samples each according to the repair material used (A; Clearfil porcelain repair system and B; P and R porcelain repair system). All specimens were subjected to a standard shear load in the UTM until fracture occurred. Data were analyzed using one-way analysis of variance and post hoc Bonferroni test. Statistical Analysis used: One-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) and post hoc Bonferroni test. Results: Clearfil repair system showed significantly higher shear bond strength value (29.16 Mpa) as compared to P and R repair system (27.23 Mpa) for cohesive fractures. Whereas if compared for repairing adhesive fractures P and R repair system had significantly higher shear bond strength values (26.59 Mpa) than Clearfil repair system (25.74 Mpa). Conclusions: From the present study, it was be concluded that for cohesive fracture Clearfil repair system is a better material and for adhesive fractures P and R repair material gives better results.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信