English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Free Plan

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

Background/Aim: The purpose of this in-vitro study was to compare the resin-bonded fixed partial dentures (RBFPD) fabricated using two different structural designs and two different antibacterial adhesive lutting protocols in regard to their resistance to debonding. Material and Methods: Forty samples for a model with single missing molar were divided into 4 groups (M1, M2, C1, C2) (n=10). M1 and M2 were prepared in accordance with modified inlay slot-cavity retained RBFPD design; C1 and C2 were prepared according to conventional inlay slot-cavity retained RBFPD design. M1 and C1 cavities were treated with 2% chlorhexidine-based (CHX) cavity disinfectant and 10-methacryloyloxydecyl dihydrogen phosphate (MDP) containing adhesive system; M2 and C2 cavities were treated with MDP and 12-methacryloyloxydodecylpyridinium bromide (MDPB) containing adhesive system featuring antibacterial cavity cleansing effect. The RBFPDs were made of base-metal alloy and their fit surfaces sandblasted with aluminium oxide (Al2O3). Adhesive resin cement was used for cementation, and the RBFPD retainers were interlocked into their corresponding inlay cavities using composite resin. After 1 week being immersed in aqueous environment, the RBFPDs were subjected to tensile loading at a crosshead speed of 1 mm/min until failure. One way ANOVA and Tukey HSD tests were used for statistical evaluation (a=0.05). Mode of failure and tooth damage was also noted. Results: Mean tensile bond strength values were 356 N for M1, 305 N for M2, 467 N for C1, and 455 N for C2. Tensile strength values of C1 and C2 were significantly higher than those of M1 and M2 (p 0.05). Conclusions: The RBFPDs with the conventional design were found to be more retentive than those with the modified design. Using an adhesive system featuring antibacterial properties with no need of separate antibacterial agent application during bonding may be favourable.

balkan journal of dental medicine

Bond strength evaluation of inlay-retained resin-bonded fixed partial dentures with two different cavity designs and two different adhesive systems: In vitro study