• Something wrong with this record ?

A competing risk model for bond strength data analysis

A. Tichy, M. Brabec, P. Bradna, K. Hosaka, J. Tagami,

. 2020 ; 36 (12) : 1508-1515. [pub] 20200915

Language English Country Great Britain

Document type Journal Article, Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't

OBJECTIVES: A competing risk (CR) model distinguishing adhesive, cohesive and mixed failures as competing events was used for the analysis of micro-tensile bond strength (μTBS) data and compared with a conventional failure mode non-distinguishing survival model. METHODS: Fifty human molars were bonded using five universal adhesives (n = 10) and subdivided according to aging conditions (24-h water storage, thermocycling). After μTBS to dentin was tested, a fractographic analysis was performed using scanning electron microscopy. Survival analyses of the μTBS data were performed using both a failure mode distinguishing Weibull CR model, and a conventional failure mode non-distinguishing Weibull model. Weibull shape (m) and scale (σθ) parameters were calculated for both models using the maximum likelihood estimation method, and strength at 10 % probability of failure, σ0.10, was estimated. Groups were compared using 95 % confidence intervals. RESULTS: CR-model estimates of σθ and σ0.10 for adhesive failures were higher than those of the conventional model, more markedly in groups with lower percentages of adhesive failures. CR-model strength estimates for cohesive failures were similar in all groups regardless of their bond strengths and failure mode distributions. SIGNIFICANCE: Merging all bond-strength data into one dataset irrespective of the failure mode may result in a severe underestimation of bond strength, especially in groups with low incidence of adhesive failures. Bond-strength data analysis using a CR model could provide more accurate estimates of bond strength, and strength estimates for cohesive failures which were apparently independent of bond strength could serve as an internal validity indicator of the CR model.

References provided by Crossref.org

000      
00000naa a2200000 a 4500
001      
bmc20027596
003      
CZ-PrNML
005      
20210114152122.0
007      
ta
008      
210105s2020 xxk f 000 0|eng||
009      
AR
024    7_
$a 10.1016/j.dental.2020.09.004 $2 doi
035    __
$a (PubMed)32948331
040    __
$a ABA008 $b cze $d ABA008 $e AACR2
041    0_
$a eng
044    __
$a xxk
100    1_
$a Tichy, Antonin $u Institute of Dental Medicine, First Faculty of Medicine of the Charles University and General University Hospital in Prague, Karlovo Namesti 32, Prague, 121 11, Czech Republic; Department of Cariology and Operative Dentistry, Graduate School of Medical and Dental Sciences, Tokyo Medical and Dental University, 1-5-45 Yushima, Bunkyo-ku, Tokyo 113-8510, Japan. Electronic address: antonin.tichy@lf1.cuni.cz.
245    12
$a A competing risk model for bond strength data analysis / $c A. Tichy, M. Brabec, P. Bradna, K. Hosaka, J. Tagami,
520    9_
$a OBJECTIVES: A competing risk (CR) model distinguishing adhesive, cohesive and mixed failures as competing events was used for the analysis of micro-tensile bond strength (μTBS) data and compared with a conventional failure mode non-distinguishing survival model. METHODS: Fifty human molars were bonded using five universal adhesives (n = 10) and subdivided according to aging conditions (24-h water storage, thermocycling). After μTBS to dentin was tested, a fractographic analysis was performed using scanning electron microscopy. Survival analyses of the μTBS data were performed using both a failure mode distinguishing Weibull CR model, and a conventional failure mode non-distinguishing Weibull model. Weibull shape (m) and scale (σθ) parameters were calculated for both models using the maximum likelihood estimation method, and strength at 10 % probability of failure, σ0.10, was estimated. Groups were compared using 95 % confidence intervals. RESULTS: CR-model estimates of σθ and σ0.10 for adhesive failures were higher than those of the conventional model, more markedly in groups with lower percentages of adhesive failures. CR-model strength estimates for cohesive failures were similar in all groups regardless of their bond strengths and failure mode distributions. SIGNIFICANCE: Merging all bond-strength data into one dataset irrespective of the failure mode may result in a severe underestimation of bond strength, especially in groups with low incidence of adhesive failures. Bond-strength data analysis using a CR model could provide more accurate estimates of bond strength, and strength estimates for cohesive failures which were apparently independent of bond strength could serve as an internal validity indicator of the CR model.
650    _2
$a složené pryskyřice $7 D003188
650    _2
$a analýza dat $7 D000078332
650    12
$a vazba zubní $7 D001840
650    _2
$a zubní cementy $7 D003738
650    _2
$a dentin $7 D003804
650    12
$a dentinová adheziva $7 D017220
650    _2
$a lidé $7 D006801
650    _2
$a testování materiálů $7 D008422
650    _2
$a pryskyřičné cementy $7 D019279
650    _2
$a pevnost v tahu $7 D013718
655    _2
$a časopisecké články $7 D016428
655    _2
$a práce podpořená grantem $7 D013485
700    1_
$a Brabec, Marek $u Department of Statistical Modelling, Institute of Computer Science of the Czech Academy of Sciences, Pod Vodarenskou Vezi 271/2, Prague, 182 00, Czech Republic.
700    1_
$a Bradna, Pavel $u Institute of Dental Medicine, First Faculty of Medicine of the Charles University and General University Hospital in Prague, Karlovo Namesti 32, Prague, 121 11, Czech Republic.
700    1_
$a Hosaka, Keiichi $u Department of Cariology and Operative Dentistry, Graduate School of Medical and Dental Sciences, Tokyo Medical and Dental University, 1-5-45 Yushima, Bunkyo-ku, Tokyo 113-8510, Japan.
700    1_
$a Tagami, Junji $u Department of Cariology and Operative Dentistry, Graduate School of Medical and Dental Sciences, Tokyo Medical and Dental University, 1-5-45 Yushima, Bunkyo-ku, Tokyo 113-8510, Japan.
773    0_
$w MED00001334 $t Dental materials : official publication of the Academy of Dental Materials $x 1879-0097 $g Roč. 36, č. 12 (2020), s. 1508-1515
856    41
$u https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/32948331 $y Pubmed
910    __
$a ABA008 $b sig $c sign $y a $z 0
990    __
$a 20210105 $b ABA008
991    __
$a 20210114152120 $b ABA008
999    __
$a ok $b bmc $g 1607931 $s 1118776
BAS    __
$a 3
BAS    __
$a PreBMC
BMC    __
$a 2020 $b 36 $c 12 $d 1508-1515 $e 20200915 $i 1879-0097 $m Dental materials $n Dent Mater $x MED00001334
LZP    __
$a Pubmed-20210105

Find record

Citation metrics

Logged in users only

Archiving options

Loading data ...