Akademik Veri Yönetim Sistemi
The New York state dental journal, cilt.73, sa.3, ss.28-32, 2007 (Scopus)
This study was done to analyze the effect of different surfaces and different surface applications on the bonding strength of porcelain repair material and to compare these factors with one another. Three different substructures of 10 mm diameter and 4 mm thickness were used for the repair surface: metal, metal on porcelain and porcelain. The surfaces of half of the samples were roughened with an air abrasion tool; the surfaces of the other half were treated with a diamond bur. The specimens were ultrasonically cleaned in distilled water. A silane coupling agent and a bonding agent were applied to the surfaces of all the samples. Resin composite was applied to each specimen. All specimens were stored in distilled water for 24 hours before being thermocycled. After thermocycling, specimens were stored in distilled water for an additional seven days before being subjected to a shear load. The highest bonding strength was observed in the samples with a metal substructure, the surfaces of which were prepared with an air abrasion tool; the lowest bonding strength was observed in the samples with a metal substructure, the surfaces of which were prepared with a diamond bur. When different substructures were examined in terms of bonding strength, the highest bonding strength was statistically observed in metal-on-porcelain substructures, and the lowest bonding strength was observed in the porcelain substructure. When they were examined in terms of surface processes, the highest bonding strength was statistically observed in the samples whose surfaces were prepared with an air abrasion tool, and the lowest bonding strength was observed in the samples whose surfaces were prepared with a diamond bur.