Ștefan George Călinoiu
Current Organizations / Institutes
The organizations/institutes from the scholar's latest article
Research Subjects
Research Interests
Ștefan George Călinoiu has a total of 5 co-authors. Here are the top co-authors by number of shared publications:
- Anamaria Florescu
Faculty of Dental Medicine, “Titu Maiorescu” University, 67A Gh. Petrascu Street, 040441 Bucharest, Romania
1 shared publication - Cătălin Dumitru
Faculty of Dental Medicine, “Titu Maiorescu” University, 67A Gh. Petrascu Street, 040441 Bucharest, Romania
1 shared publication - Dan Ioan Stoia
Department of Mechanics and Strength of Materials, Politehnica University Timișoara, 300006 Timișoara, Romania
1 shared publication - Florentina Cornelia Bîclesanu
Faculty of Medicine, Titu Maiorescu University, 031593 Bucharest, Romania
1 shared publication - Marian Miculescu
Faculty Materials Science & Engineering, National University Science & Technology Politehnica Bucharest, 313 Splaiul Independentei, Dist 6, 060042 Bucharest, Romania
1 shared publication
Latest Publications
- Open Access
Comparative Study on Interface Fracture of 4th Generation 3-Steps Adhesive and 7th Generation Universal Adhesive
The purpose of this paper is to compare the fracture behavior of interfaces obtained using fourth-generation and universal dental adhesives. The study relies on optic and SEM to evaluate the dentin–adhesive–restoration material interface of the samples and also on FEA simulation of fracture behavior. Specimen fabrication relied on 20 extracted teeth, in which class I cavities were created according to a protocol established based on the rules of minimally invasive therapy. For the direct adhesive technique, the adhesives used were: three-step All Bond, three-batch A and one-step Clearfil Universal Bond Quick-batch B. The restoration was performed with the same composite for both adhesives: Gradia direct posterior. The simulation used a 3D reconstructed molar on which geometric operations were performed to obtain an assembly that replicated a physical specimen. Material properties were applied to each component based on the information found in the literature. A simplified model for crack propagation was constructed, and using the fracture mechanics tool in Ansys 2019, the stress intensity factors that act at the crack tip of the adhesive interface were obtained. Mechanical simulation and microscopic investigation showed us how the interface of the dentine–adhesive–filling material performed in cases of both dental adhesives and for a certain loading condition. Important differences were identified among the adhesives, the fourth generation being superior to the fourth generation especially due to the separate steps in which the tooth surface was prepared for adhesion.
Open AccessComparative Study on Interface Fracture of 4th Generation 3-Steps Adhesive and 7th Generation Universal Adhesive
The purpose of this paper is to compare the fracture behavior of interfaces obtained using fourth-generation and universal dental adhesives. The study relies on optic and SEM to evaluate the dentin–adhesive–restoration material interface of the samples and also on FEA simulation of fracture behavior. Specimen fabrication relied on 20 extracted teeth, in which class I cavities were created according to a protocol established based on the rules of minimally invasive therapy. For the direct adhesive technique, the adhesives used were: three-step All Bond, three-batch A and one-step Clearfil Universal Bond Quick-batch B. The restoration was performed with the same composite for both adhesives: Gradia direct posterior. The simulation used a 3D reconstructed molar on which geometric operations were performed to obtain an assembly that replicated a physical specimen. Material properties were applied to each component based on the information found in the literature. A simplified model for crack propagation was constructed, and using the fracture mechanics tool in Ansys 2019, the stress intensity factors that act at the crack tip of the adhesive interface were obtained. Mechanical simulation and microscopic investigation showed us how the interface of the dentine–adhesive–filling material performed in cases of both dental adhesives and for a certain loading condition. Important differences were identified among the adhesives, the fourth generation being superior to the fourth generation especially due to the separate steps in which the tooth surface was prepared for adhesion.