Biomedical subjects
Publications and source records attributed to L G Terkla.
Using one selected amalgam bonding agent, the authors evaluated bonded and unbonded restorations in clinical service. Based on postoperative sensitivity one to two weeks after placement and marginal fracture at one year, no difference was found between the bonded and unbonded restorations. Furthermore, some technical difficulties were experienced with use of the bonding agent.
The purpose of this study was to measure the bond strength of resin dentin bonding agents under clinically-simulated conditions. Using extracted human teeth subjected to physiologic-pulpal fluid pressure, occlusal cavity preparations were restored with three dentin bonding agent/resin composite combinations. The teeth were sectioned to remove the occlusal enamel and upper part of the restoration. The force required to remove the remainder of the restoration was converted to a dentin bond strength value. The effect of incremental placement of the resin composite also was investigated. Scotchbond 2 showed better bonding than Gluma or Scotchbond Dual Cure, and Gluma showed better bonding than Scotchbond Dual Cure. Although all materials showed better bonding with the use of three increments of resin composite versus one, only in the case of Scotchbond 2 was there a statistically-verified difference.
Explore the source record for details and available documents.
The objectives of this investigation were (1) to develop a sensitive laboratory system that simulates the physiological and clinical conditions of a prepared human tooth in order to facilitate the determination of the bonding and sealing efficacies of restorative dental materials and (2) to conduct experiments with two dentin bonding agents, two posterior composite resin restorative materials (hybrid and microfilled), and a glass-ionomer type II filling material. The system functioned well and provided data to indicate that, after margination, the two posterior composite resin restorative materials performed equally and both performed better than the glass-ionomer filling material; none of the materials provided a perfect seal immediately after insertion, although some restorations demonstrated perfect seals from 16 hours to 28 days after placement; the seal of the glass-ionomer material improved after 28 days of storage in buffer solution; each successive step in the respective composite resin procedures improved the seal except in one case for the microfilled resin.
Explore the source record for details and available documents.
Explore the source record for details and available documents.
Explore the source record for details and available documents.
Explore the source record for details and available documents.
Explore the source record for details and available documents.
Explore the source record for details and available documents.
Explore the source record for details and available documents.
Explore the source record for details and available documents.
Explore the source record for details and available documents.
Explore the source record for details and available documents.
Explore the source record for details and available documents.
Explore the source record for details and available documents.
Explore the source record for details and available documents.