Abstract
This laboratory study evaluated the strength of composite repairs using various surface treatment procedures. Roughening a previously cured composite surface, with either a diamond instrument or aluminum oxide air abrasion, yielded composite to composite repair strengths that were not significantly different (P > 0.05) than bonding composite to the air-inhibited layer of a cured composite. The bond strengths of composite repairs were slightly higher when using an unfilled bonding agent but not significantly different (P > 0.05) than the same repair techniques without the bonding agent.
| Original language | English |
|---|---|
| Pages (from-to) | 59-62 |
| Number of pages | 4 |
| Journal | Operative Dentistry |
| Volume | 21 |
| Issue number | 2 |
| State | Published - Mar 1996 |
Fingerprint
All Science Journal Classification (ASJC) codes
- Dentistry(all)
Cite this
Laboratory evaluation of surface treatments for composite repair. / Kupiec, K. A.; Barkmeier, Wayne W.
In: Operative Dentistry, Vol. 21, No. 2, 03.1996, p. 59-62.Research output: Contribution to journal › Review article
}
TY - JOUR
T1 - Laboratory evaluation of surface treatments for composite repair
AU - Kupiec, K. A.
AU - Barkmeier, Wayne W.
PY - 1996/3
Y1 - 1996/3
N2 - This laboratory study evaluated the strength of composite repairs using various surface treatment procedures. Roughening a previously cured composite surface, with either a diamond instrument or aluminum oxide air abrasion, yielded composite to composite repair strengths that were not significantly different (P > 0.05) than bonding composite to the air-inhibited layer of a cured composite. The bond strengths of composite repairs were slightly higher when using an unfilled bonding agent but not significantly different (P > 0.05) than the same repair techniques without the bonding agent.
AB - This laboratory study evaluated the strength of composite repairs using various surface treatment procedures. Roughening a previously cured composite surface, with either a diamond instrument or aluminum oxide air abrasion, yielded composite to composite repair strengths that were not significantly different (P > 0.05) than bonding composite to the air-inhibited layer of a cured composite. The bond strengths of composite repairs were slightly higher when using an unfilled bonding agent but not significantly different (P > 0.05) than the same repair techniques without the bonding agent.
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=0030090651&partnerID=8YFLogxK
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=0030090651&partnerID=8YFLogxK
M3 - Review article
VL - 21
SP - 59
EP - 62
JO - Operative Dentistry
JF - Operative Dentistry
SN - 0361-7734
IS - 2
ER -