4.6 Article

Effects of diphenyliodonium salt addition on the adhesive and mechanical properties of an experimental adhesive

期刊

JOURNAL OF DENTISTRY
卷 41, 期 7, 页码 653-658

出版社

ELSEVIER SCI LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.jdent.2013.04.009

关键词

Adhesive; Hybrid layer; Diphenyliodonium salt; Microtensile bond strength; Nanoleakage; Adhesive properties

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Objectives: The aim of this study was to assess the microtensile bond strength (mu TBS), nanoleakage (NL), nano-hardness (NH) and Young's modulus (YM) of resin-dentine bonding components formed by an experimental adhesive system with or without inclusion of diphenyliodonium salt (DPIH) in the camphorquinone-amine (CQ) system. Methods: On 12 human molars, a flat superficial dentine surface was exposed by wet abrasion. A model simplified adhesive system was formulated (40 wt.% UDMA/MDP, 30 wt.% HEMA and 30 wt.% ethanol). Two initiator systems were investigated: 0.5 mol% CQ + 1.0 mol% EDMAB and 0.5 mol% CQ + 1.0 mol% EDMAB + 0.2 mol% DPIH. Each adhesive was applied and light-cured (10 s; 600 mW/cm(2)). Composite build-ups were constructed incrementally and resin-dentine specimens (0.8 mm(2)) were prepared. For NL, 3 bonded sticks from each tooth were coated with nail varnish, placed in the silver nitrate, polished down with SiC papers and analysed by EDX-SEM. NH and YM were performed on the hybrid layer in 2 bonded sticks from each teeth. The remaining bonded sticks were tested on mTBS (0.5 mm/min). The data from each test were submitted to a Student t-test (alpha = 0.05). Results: No significant difference was found for mTBS between groups (p > 0.05). Significant lower NL and higher NH and YM were found in the hybrid layer and adhesive layer produced with the iodinium salt-containing adhesive (p < 0.05). Conclusions: The inclusion of the DPIH to the traditional CQ is a good strategy to improve the adhesive and mechanical properties of a simplified etch-and-rinse adhesive system. (C) 2013 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据