PubMed · 8305069
The source did not provide an abstract. Follow the original record for more information.
Explore connections, maps & timelines
P Gange. 1993. Comment on bonding systems.. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0889-5406(05)80431-7
Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.
KEEP EXPLORING
OBJECTIVES: The aim of the study was to clinically assess marginal failures of amalgam and composite restorations. METHOD: Marginal defects with and without clinical evidence of secondary caries were evaluated by practitioners pre-operatively and after the restoration had been carefully removed. RESULTS: Analyses of 235 amalgam and 193 composite restorations with marginal failures showed that secondary caries was the most frequent diagnosis resulting in replacement. The secondary caries was predominately found along the gingival section of the restoration. A comparison of pre-operative diagnoses of marginal discrepancies, and the condition of the cavities at the site of the defects after the restorations had been carefully removed, showed fairly good consistency, but both false negative and false positive diagnoses were made. CONCLUSION: The observations indicated that diagnosis of the outer lesion of secondary caries provides a good basis for treatment planning.
Explore the source record for details and available documents.
Total failure energy is defined as the energy required to stress a bond to the point of fracture. This study was designed to assess and compare the total failure energy of a resin-enamel bond with conventional tensile and shear bond strengths. A commercially available composite resin was bonded to human enamel surface. During testing, the applied load versus displacement of the load fixture was recorded and analyzed by a data acquisition system. The tensile and shear bond strengths as well as the total failure energies were calculated. The mean tensile bond strength (21.2 MPa) was higher than the mean shear bond strength (11.6 MPa). The mean total energy applied for tensile failure of the bond (2.1 kg.mm) was also higher than that for the shear failure (1.5 kg.mm). There were statistically significant correlations between bond strength and total failure energy. The failure modes of the shear bond test revealed a higher frequency of adhesive failures compared to the tensile bond test. Further, a dramatic difference existed in the cohesive failure mode between tensile (cohesive composite failure) and shear (cohesive enamel failure) tests. The total failure energy, which represents the fracture strength as well as the failure process of a bond, may be considered an appropriate criterion for characterizing the failure of a bond.