Skip to main content
. Author manuscript; available in PMC: 2014 Aug 1.
Published in final edited form as: Eur J Oral Sci. 2013 May 4;121(4):355–362. doi: 10.1111/eos.12052

Table 1.

Number of the micro-bars and the percentage of each failure mode of the μTBS tested specimens obtained from each tooth with cross-section size of 1×1 mm2, 1×2 mm2, and ×3 mm2.

Micro-bar
cross-
section
Tooth 1 2 3 4

Plasma
treated
Control Plasma
treated
Control Plasma
treated
Control Plasma
treated
Control
1×1 mm2 Number of micro-bars 9 5 16 9 7 9 8 5

Interface & mixed failure* (%) 33 60 63 44 29 44 100 100

Cohesive failure* (%) 67 40 27 56 71 56 0 0

1×2 mm2 Number of micro-bars 9 5 8 5 7 8 11 9

Interface & mixed failure (%) 33 80 100 100 71 100 82 89

Cohesive failure (%) 67 20 0 0 29 0 18 11

1×3 mm2 Number of micro-bars 3 2 2 3 4 3 1 2

Interface & mixed failure (%) 33 50 0 67 50 33 100 100

Cohesive failure (%) 67 50 100 33 50 67 0 0
*

Interface failure: fracture occurred in adhesive with no fractured dentin on the resin and no remnants of resin on the dentin surfaces; Cohesive failure: fracture is completely located in dentin, resin or Zapit; Mixed failure: test specimen shows both interface and cohesive failures.