Jove
Visualize
Contact Us
JoVE
x logofacebook logolinkedin logoyoutube logo
ABOUT JoVE
OverviewLeadershipBlogJoVE Help Center
AUTHORS
Publishing ProcessEditorial BoardScope & PoliciesPeer ReviewFAQSubmit
LIBRARIANS
TestimonialsSubscriptionsAccessResourcesLibrary Advisory BoardFAQ
RESEARCH
JoVE JournalMethods CollectionsJoVE Encyclopedia of ExperimentsArchive
EDUCATION
JoVE CoreJoVE BusinessJoVE Science EducationJoVE Lab ManualFaculty Resource CenterFaculty Site
Terms & Conditions of Use
Privacy Policy
Policies

Related Experiment Videos

A comparison of two silicoating techniques

S K Hummel1, L L Pace, V A Marker

  • 1Dept of Restorative Science, Baylor College of Dentistry, Dallas, TX 75246, USA.

Journal of Prosthodontics : Official Journal of the American College of Prosthodontists
|June 1, 1994
PubMed
Summary
This summary is machine-generated.

Related Concept Videos

You might also read

Related Articles

Articles linked to this work by shared authors, journal, and citation graph.

Sort by
Same author

Effect of handpiece tip design on the cutting efficiency of an air abrasion system.

American journal of dentistry·2002
Same author

Dental materials in the new millennium: research at Baylor College of Dentistry and a look at new trends.

Texas dental journal·2002
Same author

Evaluation of cutting patterns produced with air-abrasion systems using different tip designs.

Operative dentistry·2001
Same author

Implant materials, designs, and surface topographies: their effect on osseointegration. A literature review.

The International journal of oral & maxillofacial implants·2000
Same author

A pilot study to evaluate different palate materials for maxillary complete dentures with xerostomic patients.

Journal of prosthodontics : official journal of the American College of Prosthodontists·1999
Same author

Evaluation of working distances at a 1:1 reproduction ratio for seven popular 35-mm dental camera systems.

Journal of prosthodontics : official journal of the American College of Prosthodontists·1998

The Silicoater MD improved composite-metal bond strength with noble alloys, while the Silicoater Classic performed better with base metal alloys. Alloy composition influences silicoating treatment effectiveness for dental restorations.

Area of Science:

  • Materials Science
  • Biomaterials Engineering
  • Dental Materials

Background:

  • Achieving a strong bond between composite resins and metal alloys is crucial for the longevity of dental restorations.
  • Traditional methods often face challenges in creating durable interfaces, impacting clinical performance.

Purpose of the Study:

  • To compare the bond strengths between composite resins and various metal alloys using two distinct silicoating treatments: Silicoater Classic and Silicoater MD.
  • To evaluate the influence of different silicoating processes on the adhesion of restorative materials to dental alloys.

Main Methods:

  • Three metal alloys (Deva4, G-Cast, Ticonium) were cast into specimens and treated with either Silicoater Classic or Silicoater MD.
  • Opaque resin and composite were applied, followed by thermocycling to simulate intraoral conditions.

Related Experiment Videos

  • Shear bond strength and three-point flexure tests were performed, with data analyzed using MANOVA and Tukey's tests.

    • Main Results:

    • Shear bond strength tests showed no significant differences between the groups.
    • Flexure test data revealed that Silicoater MD yielded significantly higher bond strength ratios for noble alloys (Deva-4, G-Cast) compared to Silicoater Classic.
    • Conversely, Silicoater Classic demonstrated superior bond strength ratios for the base metal alloy (Ticonium).

    Conclusions:

    • The Silicoater MD is more effective for enhancing bond strength with noble metal alloys.
    • The Silicoater Classic shows better performance with base metal alloys.
    • The choice of silicoating treatment should be tailored to the specific alloy composition for optimal bond strength in dental restorations.