| 000 | 03122cam a2200337 a 4500 | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| 003 | EG-GiCUC | ||
| 005 | 20250223032913.0 | ||
| 008 | 220123s2021 ua dh f m 000 0 eng d | ||
| 040 |
_aEG-GiCUC _beng _cEG-GiCUC |
||
| 041 | 0 | _aeng | |
| 049 | _aDeposite | ||
| 097 | _aM.Sc | ||
| 099 | _aCai01.09.09.M.Sc.2021.Ka.E | ||
| 100 | 0 | _aKareem Mohamed Abdelmotaleb | |
| 245 | 1 | 0 |
_aEffect of different surface treatment protocols on the retention of posterior peek crowns : _bA randomized invitro study / _cKareem Mohamed Abdelmotaleb ; Supervised Hesham Katamesh , Reham Saeed Elbasty |
| 246 | 1 | 5 |
_aتأثير المعالجات السطحيه المختلفه علي الاستبقاء للتيجان المصنوعه من ماده البيك : _bدراسه معمليه |
| 260 |
_aCairo : _bKareem Mohamed Abdelmotaleb , _c2021 |
||
| 300 |
_a77 P. : _bcharts , facsimiles ; _c25cm |
||
| 502 | _aThesis (M.Sc.) - Cairo University - Faculty of Oral and Dental Medicine - Department of Prosthodontics | ||
| 520 | _aAim: The purpose of this study is to evaluate the retention of PEEK-based posterior crowns after different surface treatment protocols (sandblasting using 110 micron alumina particles, acid etching using sulphuric acid and combined sandblasting and acid etching). Methodology: 24 extracted human natural molars that were mounted in epoxy blocks and they were prepared to receive PEEK copings that were divided into 3 groups. The first group was treated with sandblasting with 110 micron alumina particles under 2 bar, The second group was treated with 98% sulphuric acid for 60 secondsthen rinsed with running water for 60 seconds, The third group was treated with sandblasting and acid etching together then all copings were cemented to their correspondingteeth with Relyx Ultimate clicker then after cementation all copings were subjected to a pull out test using a Universal testing machine . After the mesurments the teeth were examined under digital microscope to detect the mode of failure. Results:For Sandblasted group the mean ± SD values were (80.66± 5.54N) with minimum value (59.31 N) and maximum value (108.27 N), while for Acid etched group the mean ± SD values were (87.45± 5.56 N) with minimum value (81.96 N) and maximum value (101.34 N). Meanwhile the mean ± SD values for Sandblasted and Acid etched group together were (92.43± 5.51 N) with minimum value (79.67 N) and maximum value (106.19 N). In accordance to the mode of failure In SB and AE treated group, the failure mode pattern was predominantly adhesive while minority was mixed. In SB + AE treated group samples showed equal % between adhesive and mixed failure mode patterns.There was no record for cohesive failure mode pattern in all groups | ||
| 530 | _aIssued also as CD | ||
| 653 | 4 | _aDifferent surface treatment | |
| 653 | 4 | _aPEEK-based | |
| 653 | 4 | _aPosterior peek crowns | |
| 700 | 0 |
_aHesham Katamesh , _eSupervisor |
|
| 700 | 0 |
_aReham Saeed Elbasty , _eSupervisor |
|
| 856 | _uhttp://172.23.153.220/th.pdf | ||
| 905 |
_aNazla _eRevisor |
||
| 905 |
_aShimaa _eCataloger |
||
| 942 |
_2ddc _cTH |
||
| 999 |
_c83998 _d83998 |
||