PubMed Health⌕ Search

Biomedical subjects

J W Thurmond

Publications and source records attributed to J W Thurmond.

6 recordsLinked to original sources
PubMed1994

Effect of porcelain surface treatments on bond strengths of composite resin bonded to porcelain.

A laboratory study was conducted to evaluate the bond strength of composite resin bonded to porcelain surfaces by use of a variety of treatment regimens with the All-Bond 2 adhesive system. There were significant differences in the 24-hour bond strengths between several of the surface treatment methods. The mean shear bond strength after 24 hours of water storage ranged from 10.6 +/- 2.3 MPa to 25.0 +/- 4.4 MPa. Nine of the surface treatment methods showed a significant decrease (p < 0.05) in bond strengths after 3 months of water storage and thermocycling. After 3 months, the bond strengths ranged 0.1 +/- 0.1 MPa to 17.4 +/- 2.0 MPa. Porcelain surface treatment with aluminum oxide air abrasion followed by hydrofluoric acid, a silane coupling agent, and an unfilled resin produced a bond strength after 3 months' water storage and thermocycling that was significantly greater (p < 0.05) than the other nine porcelain surface-treatment techniques. Visual examination of the debonded specimens generally showed cohesive failures in porcelain for the treatment groups with a mean bond strength above 13 MPa.

Adhesives↗
PubMed1994

Laboratory evaluation of Amalgambond and Amalgambond Plus.

PURPOSE: To evaluate the shear bond strength (SBS) of a microfilled resin restorative material and an amalgam alloy to dentin using the Amalgambond Plus adhesive system with a variety of bonding regimens. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The study design incorporated bonding composite to both dry and moist dentin using open-ended plastic matrices and closed-ended gelatin capsules. In addition, the bond strength of amalgam to dry dentin was determined. RESULTS: The mean SBS of Silux Plus to dentin using Amalgambond without the HPA powder ranged from 17.55 +/- 1.96 MPa to 22.47 +/- 3.89 MPa. The SBS range observed when the microfilled composite was bonded to dentin with Amalgambond Plus (includes the HPA powder) was from 20.33 +/- 3.84 MPa to 22.50 +/- 3.69 MPa. There was no significant difference (P > 0.05) in the SBS of the microfilled resin restorative material to dentin between the groups that were bonded using an open-ended cylinder-shaped plastic matrix and those prepared using a closed-ended gelatin capsule matrix, nor was there a difference (P > 0.05) in the SBS when the microfilled resin restorative material was bonded to either wet or dry dentin surfaces. The use of multiple applications of Amalgambond adhesive did not markedly increase the SBS with this system. The mean bond strength of amalgam alloy (Dispersalloy) to dentin using Amalgambond Plus was 10.41 +/- 1.47 MPa.

Composite Resins↗
PubMedDate not supplied

Three-year clinical evaluation of the Clearfil Liner Bond system.

Modern dental adhesive systems have improved the bond of restorative materials to mineralized tooth structures. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the clinical performance of composite restorations placed in abrasion and erosion lesions using the Clearfil Liner Bond dental adhesive system. Following ADA clinical guidelines for dentin and enamel adhesive materials, 62 facial class 5 smooth surface erosion or abrasion lesions with no undercuts and involving primarily root surfaces were restored in 25 adult male and female patients. The teeth were restored without preparations using Clearfil Liner Bond and Clearfil Photo Anterior composite resin. The clinical performance of the restorations was assessed by two examiners at baseline, 6 months, 1, 2, and 3 years using the following evaluative parameters: color match, marginal discoloration, and marginal integrity according to modified Ryge criteria; the presence or absence of recurrent decay; pre- and postoperative sensitivity; and restoration failure due to loss of retention or other causes. At the end of 3 years, four of the 55 restorations remaining in the study failed due to lack of retention (92.7% retention rate). The evaluations of the other clinical parameters demonstrated excellent performance by this system.

Adult↗