首页> 外文期刊>Dental materials >Fracture toughness versus micro-tensile bond strength testing of adhesive-dentin interfaces
【24h】

Fracture toughness versus micro-tensile bond strength testing of adhesive-dentin interfaces

机译:粘合剂-牙本质界面的断裂韧性与微拉伸粘合强度测试

获取原文
获取原文并翻译 | 示例
       

摘要

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.
机译:目的。评估不同粘合剂方法的界面断裂韧性,并与标准微拉伸粘合强度(μTBS)测试进行比较。方法。按照修订的ISO 24370标准测量了V型缺口梁的断裂韧性(CNB)。制备了尺寸为3.0×4.0×25 mm的复合条,中间是粘合剂-牙本质界面。在粘合剂-牙本质界面处,使用安装在水冷金刚石锯中的0.15毫米薄金刚石锯片制备V形切口。加载每个样品,直到在4点弯曲测试设置中失败为止,并根据ISO规范计算断裂韧性。同样地,对牙本质-粘合剂微型标本(1.0×1.0×8-10 mm)施加拉伸应力,直到无法确定μTBS。结果。在CNB和μTBS之间观察到正相关(r〜2 = 0.64),但仅在统计学上显着,主要是由于Scotchbond Universal(3M ESPE)结果不同。虽然很少有μTBS标本在粘合剂-牙本质界面处失效,但几乎所有CNB标本在缺口尖端处均失效。界面断裂韧性的威布尔模量比μTBS高得多(分别为3.8-11.5和2.7-4.8),尤其与早期失效有关。意义。尽管使用CNB和μTBS测试的粘合剂在粘合效果上的排名非常吻合,但CNB的结果显得更可靠且变化较小。然而,断裂韧性测量更加费力,并且需要特定的设备。然而,μTBS似乎仍然是一种有效的方法,可以通过多种方式评估粘合效果。

著录项

  • 来源
    《Dental materials》 |2013年第6期|635-644|共10页
  • 作者单位

    KU Leuven-Biomat, Department of Oral Health Sciences, KU Leuven (University of Leuven), Belgium;

    KU Leuven-Biomat, Department of Oral Health Sciences, KU Leuven (University of Leuven), Belgium,Department of Conservative Dentistry, Periodontology and Preventive Dentistry, Hannover Medical School, Germany;

    KU Leuven-Biomat, Department of Oral Health Sciences, KU Leuven (University of Leuven), Belgium;

    KU Leuven-Biomat, Department of Oral Health Sciences, KU Leuven (University of Leuven), Belgium;

    KU Leuven-Biomat, Department of Oral Health Sciences, KU Leuven (University of Leuven), Belgium,Department of Dentistry, University Hospitals Leuven, Belgium;

  • 收录信息 美国《科学引文索引》(SCI);美国《工程索引》(EI);美国《化学文摘》(CA);
  • 原文格式 PDF
  • 正文语种 eng
  • 中图分类
  • 关键词

    Fracture toughness; Micro-tensile bond strength; CNB; Adhesive; Dentin;

    机译:断裂韧性;微拉伸粘结强度;CNB;胶粘剂;牙本质;
  • 入库时间 2022-08-18 03:47:03

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
获取原文

客服邮箱:kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备:11010802029741号 ICP备案号:京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有
  • 客服微信

  • 服务号