Effect of surface treatments on interfacial characteristics and band alignments of atomic-layer-deposited Al2 O3 films on GaAs substrates

2011 ◽  
Vol 43 (3) ◽  
pp. 734-737 ◽  
Author(s):  
You-Pin Gong ◽  
Ai-Dong Li ◽  
Xiao-Jie Liu ◽  
Wen-Qi Zhang ◽  
Hui Li ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Atomic Layer ◽  
Surface Treatments ◽  
Gaas Substrates ◽  
Band Alignments ◽  
Interfacial Characteristics ◽  
Effect Of Surface

Impact of the Al/Hf ratio on the electrical properties and band alignments of atomic-layer-deposited HfO2/Al2O3on S-passivated GaAs substrates

2010 ◽  
Vol 25 (5) ◽  
pp. 055012 ◽  
Author(s):  
You-Pin Gong ◽  
Ai-Dong Li ◽  
Xue-Fei Li ◽  
Hui Li ◽  
Hai-Fai Zhai ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Electrical Properties ◽  
Atomic Layer ◽  
Gaas Substrates ◽  
Band Alignments

scholarly journals Effect of surface treatments on push-out bond strength of calcium silicate-based cements to fiber posts

2021 ◽  
Vol 21 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Amr M. Elnaghy ◽  
Ayman Mandorah ◽  
Ali H. Hassan ◽  
Alaa Elshazli ◽  
Shaymaa Elsaka
Keyword(s):  
Bond Strength ◽  
Surface Treatment ◽  
Glass Fiber ◽  
Calcium Silicate ◽  
Surface Treatments ◽  
The Other ◽  
Fiber Posts ◽  
Glass Fiber Posts ◽  
Push Out ◽  
Effect Of Surface

Abstract Background To evaluate the effect of surface treatments on the push-out bond strength of Biodentine (BD) and white mineral trioxide aggregate (WMTA) to fiber posts. Methods Two brands of fiber posts were used: Reblida post; RP and RelyX post; RX. Each type of post (n = 80/group) was divided into four groups (n = 20/group) and exposed to surface treatment as follows: Control (no treatment), sandblasting (SB), hydrofluoric acid (HF), and TiF4 4 wt/v%. Each group was further subdivided into two subgroups (n = 10/subgroup) based on the type of CSCs used as follows: Subgroup A: BD and Subgroup B: WMTA. Push-out bond strength of BD and WMTA to glass fiber posts was assessed. Data were statistically analyzed using three-way ANOVA and Tukey’s test. A Weibull analysis was performed on the push-out bond strength data. Results BD showed higher bond strength than WMTA (P < 0.001). The push-out bond strength for posts treated with TiF4 4 wt/v% showed greater bond strength than the other surface treatments (P < 0.05). The BD/RP-TiF4 4 wt/v% showed the greater characteristic bond strength (σ0) (15.93) compared with the other groups. Surface treatments modified the surface topography of glass fiber posts. Conclusions The BD/RP-TiF4 4 wt/v% showed greater bond strength compared with the other groups. The TiF4 4 wt/v% surface treatment enhanced the bond strength of BD and WMTA to glass fiber posts than the other treatments. Surface treatment of fiber post with TiF4 4 wt/v% could be used to improve the bond strength with calcium silicate-based cements.

Effect of surface treatments on titanium alloy bonding to lithium disilicate glass-ceramics

2016 ◽  
Vol 116 (5) ◽  
pp. 797-802 ◽  
Author(s):  
Nuno Guilherme ◽  
Chandur Wadhwani ◽  
Cheng Zheng ◽  
Kwok-Hung Chung
Keyword(s):  
Titanium Alloy ◽  
Glass Ceramics ◽  
Lithium Disilicate ◽  
Surface Treatments ◽  
Effect Of Surface

scholarly journals Effect of surface treatments of laboratory-fabricated composites on the microtensile bond strength to a luting resin cement

2004 ◽  
Vol 12 (1) ◽  
pp. 45-50 ◽  
Author(s):  
Carlos José Soares ◽  
Marcelo Giannini ◽  
Marcelo Tavares de Oliveira ◽  
Luis Alexandre Maffei Sartini Paulillo ◽  
Luis Roberto Marcondes Martins
Keyword(s):  
Bond Strength ◽  
Hydrofluoric Acid ◽  
Composite Resin ◽  
Surface Treatments ◽  
Resin Cement ◽  
Single Bond ◽  
Microtensile Bond Strength ◽  
Bonded Interface ◽  
Luting Composite ◽  
Effect Of Surface

The purpose of this study was to evaluate the influence of different surface treatments on composite resin on the microtensile bond strength to a luting resin cement. Two laboratory composites for indirect restorations, Solidex and Targis, and a conventional composite, Filtek Z250, were tested. Forty-eight composite resin blocks (5.0 x 5.0 x 5.0mm) were incrementally manufactured, which were randomly divided into six groups, according to the surface treatments: 1- control, 600-grit SiC paper (C); 2- silane priming (SI); 3- sandblasting with 50 mm Al2O3 for 10s (SA); 4- etching with 10% hydrofluoric acid for 60 s (HF); 5- HF + SI; 6 - SA + SI. Composite blocks submitted to similar surface treatments were bonded together with the resin adhesive Single Bond and Rely X luting composite. A 500-g load was applied for 5 minutes and the samples were light-cured for 40s. The bonded blocks were serially sectioned into 3 slabs with 0.9mm of thickness perpendicularly to the bonded interface (n = 12). Slabs were trimmed to a dumbbell shape and tested in tension at 0.5mm/min. For all composites tested, the application of a silane primer after sandblasting provided the highest bond strength means.

scholarly journals Novel thermoplastic fibre-metal laminates manufactured by vacuum resin infusion: The effect of surface treatments on interfacial bonding

2019 ◽  
Vol 162 ◽  
pp. 331-344 ◽  
Author(s):  
Dimitrios Mamalis ◽  
Winifred Obande ◽  
Vasileios Koutsos ◽  
Jane R. Blackford ◽  
Conchúr M. Ó Brádaigh ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Surface Treatments ◽  
Interfacial Bonding ◽  
Resin Infusion ◽  
Fibre Metal Laminates ◽  
Fibre Metal ◽  
Effect Of Surface

The effect of surface treatments on the microroughness of laser-sintered and vacuum-cast base metal alloys for dental prosthetic frameworks

2012 ◽  
Vol 75 (9) ◽  
pp. 1206-1212 ◽  
Author(s):  
Raquel Castillo-Oyagüe ◽  
Raquel Osorio ◽  
Estrella Osorio ◽  
Fátima Sánchez-aguilera ◽  
Manuel Toledano
Keyword(s):  
Base Metal ◽  
Surface Treatments ◽  
Metal Alloys ◽  
Effect Of Surface

scholarly journals Effect of Surface Treatments on the Bond Strength to Turkom-Cera All-ceramic Material

2016 ◽  
Vol 17 (11) ◽  
pp. 920-925 ◽  
Author(s):  
Bandar MA Al-Makramani ◽  
Fuad A Al-Sanabani ◽  
Abdul AA Razak ◽  
Mohamed I Abu-Hassan ◽  
Ibrahim Z AL-Shami ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Bond Strength ◽  
Ceramic Material ◽  
Failure Modes ◽  
Testing Machine ◽  
Surface Treatments ◽  
Resin Cement ◽  
Control Group ◽  
Significant Difference ◽  
All Ceramic ◽  
Effect Of Surface

ABSTRACT Aim The aim of this study was to evaluate the effect of surface treatments on shear bond strength (SBS) of Turkom-Cera (Turkom-Ceramic (M) Sdn. Bhd., Puchong, Malaysia) all-ceramic material cemented with resin cement Panavia-F (Kuraray Medical Inc., Okayama, Japan). Materials and methods Forty Turkom-Cera ceramic disks (10 mm × 3 mm) were prepared and randomly divided into four groups. The disks were wet ground to 1000-grit and subjected to four surface treatments: (1) No treatment (Control), (2) sandblasting, (3) silane application, and (4) sandblasting + silane. The four groups of 10 specimens each were bonded with Panavia-F resin cement according to manufacturer's recommendations. The SBS was determined using the universal testing machine (Instron) at 0.5 mm/min crosshead speed. Failure modes were recorded and a qualitative micromorphologic examination of different surface treatments was performed. The data were analyzed using the one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) and Tukey honestly significant difference (HSD) tests. Results The SBS of the control, sandblasting, silane, and sandblasting + silane groups were: 10.8 ± 1.5, 16.4 ± 3.4, 16.2 ± 2.5, and 19.1 ± 2.4 MPa respectively. According to the Tukey HSD test, only the mean SBS of the control group was significantly different from the other three groups. There was no significant difference between sandblasting, silane, and sandblasting + silane groups. Conclusion In this study, the three surface treatments used improved the bond strength of resin cement to Turkom-Cera disks. Clinical significance The surface treatments used in this study appeared to be suitable methods for the cementation of glass infiltrated all-ceramic restorations. How to cite this article Razak AAA, Abu-Hassan MI, AL-Makramani BMA, AL-Sanabani FA, AL-Shami IZ, Almansour HM. Effect of Surface Treatments on the Bond Strength to Turkom-Cera All-Ceramic Material. J Contemp Dent Pract 2016;17(11):920-925.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document