The Journal of Advanced Prosthodontics

The Korean Academy of Prosthodonitics (대한치과보철학회)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

Tensile strength of bilayered ceramics and corresponding glass veneers

  • Anunmana, Chuchai (Department of Prosthodontics, Faculty of Dentistry, Mahidol University) ;
  • Champirat, Tharee (Department of Advanced General Dentistry, Faculty of Dentistry, Mahidol University) ;
  • Jirajariyavej, Bundhit (Department of Prosthodontics, Faculty of Dentistry, Mahidol University)
  • Received : 2013.08.10
  • Accepted : 2014.05.15
  • Published : 2014.06.30
Download PDF
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

PURPOSE. To investigate the microtensile bond strength between two all-ceramic systems; lithium disilicate glass ceramic and zirconia core ceramics bonded with their corresponding glass veneers. MATERIALS AND METHODS. Blocks of core ceramics (IPS e.max$^{(R)}$ Press and Lava$^{TM}$ Frame) were fabricated and veneered with their corresponding glass veneers. The bilayered blocks were cut into microbars; 8 mm in length and $1mm^2$ in cross-sectional area (n = 30/group). Additionally, monolithic microbars of these two veneers (IPS e.max$^{(R)}$ Ceram and LavaTM Ceram; n = 30/group) were also prepared. The obtained microbars were tested in tension until fracture, and the fracture surfaces of the microbars were examined with fluorescent black light and scanning electron microscope (SEM) to identify the mode of failure. One-way ANOVA and the Dunnett's T3 test were performed to determine significant differences of the mean microtensile bond strength at a significance level of 0.05. RESULTS. The mean microtensile bond strength of IPS e.max$^{(R)}$ Press/IPS e.max$^{(R)}$ Ceram ($43.40{\pm}5.51$ MPa) was significantly greater than that of Lava$^{TM}$ Frame/Lava$^{TM}$ Ceram ($31.71{\pm}7.03$ MPa)(P<.001). Fluorescent black light and SEM analysis showed that most of the tested microbars failed cohesively in the veneer layer. Furthermore, the bond strength of Lava$^{TM}$ Frame/Lava$^{TM}$ Ceram was comparable to the tensile strength of monolithic glass veneer of Lava$^{TM}$ Ceram, while the bond strength of bilayered IPS e.max$^{(R)}$ Press/IPS e.max$^{(R)}$ Ceram was significantly greater than tensile strength of monolithic IPS e.max$^{(R)}$ Ceram. CONCLUSION. Because fracture site occurred mostly in the glass veneer and most failures were away from the interfacial zone, microtensile bond test may not be a suitable test for bonding integrity. Fracture mechanics approach such as fracture toughness of the interface may be more appropriate to represent the bonding quality between two materials.

Keywords

References

  1. Raigrodski AJ. Contemporary materials and technologies for all-ceramic fixed partial dentures: a review of the literature. J Prosthet Dent 2004;92:557-62. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.prosdent.2004.09.015
  2. Conrad HJ, Seong WJ, Pesun IJ. Current ceramic materials and systems with clinical recommendations: a systematic review. J Prosthet Dent 2007;98:389-404. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0022-3913(07)60124-3
  3. Odman P, Andersson B. Procera AllCeram crowns followed for 5 to 10.5 years: a prospective clinical study. Int J Prosthodont 2001;14:504-9.
  4. Raigrodski AJ, Chiche GJ, Potiket N, Hochstedler JL, Mohamed SE, Billiot S, Mercante DE. The efficacy of posterior three-unit zirconium-oxide-based ceramic fixed partial dental prostheses: a prospective clinical pilot study. J Prosthet Dent 2006;96:237-44. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.prosdent.2006.08.010
  5. Sailer I, Pjetursson BE, Zwahlen M, Hammerle CH. A systematic review of the survival and complication rates of allceramic and metal-ceramic reconstructions after an observation period of at least 3 years. Part II: Fixed dental prostheses. Clin Oral Implants Res 2007;18:86-96.
  6. Vult von Steyern P, Carlson P, Nilner K. All-ceramic fixed partial dentures designed according to the DC-Zirkon technique. A 2-year clinical study. J Oral Rehabil 2005;32:180-7. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2842.2004.01437.x
  7. Guazzato M, Proos K, Sara G, Swain MV. Strength, reliability, and mode of fracture of bilayered porcelain/core ceramics. Int J Prosthodont 2004;17:142-9.
  8. Dundar M, Ozcan M, Gokce B, Comlekoglu E, Leite F, Valandro LF. Comparison of two bond strength testing methodologies for bilayered all-ceramics. Dent Mater 2007;23:630-6. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dental.2006.05.004
  9. Della Bona A, van Noort R. Shear vs. tensile bond strength of resin composite bonded to ceramic. J Dent Res 1995;74: 1591-6. https://doi.org/10.1177/00220345950740091401
  10. El Zohairy AA, de Gee AJ, de Jager N, van Ruijven LJ, Feilzer AJ. The influence of specimen attachment and dimension on microtensile strength. J Dent Res 2004;83:420-4. https://doi.org/10.1177/154405910408300513
  11. Sano H, Shono T, Sonoda H, Takatsu T, Ciucchi B, Carvalho R, Pashley DH. Relationship between surface area for adhesion and tensile bond strength-evaluation of a micro-tensile bond test. Dent Mater 1994;10:236-40. https://doi.org/10.1016/0109-5641(94)90067-1
  12. Aboushelib MN, Kleverlaan CJ, Feilzer AJ. Effect of zirconia type on its bond strength with different veneer ceramics. J Prosthodont 2008;17:401-8. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1532-849X.2008.00306.x
  13. El Zohairy AA, Saber MH, Abdalla AI, Feilzer AJ. Efficacy of microtensile versus microshear bond testing for evaluation of bond strength of dental adhesive systems to enamel. Dent Mater 2010;26:848-54. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dental.2010.04.010
  14. Ferrari M, Goracci C, Sadek F, Eduardo P, Cardoso C. Microtensile bond strength tests: scanning electron microscopy evaluation of sample integrity before testing. Eur J Oral Sci 2002;110:385-91. https://doi.org/10.1034/j.1600-0722.2002.21317.x
  15. Aboushelib MN, de Jager N, Kleverlaan CJ, Feilzer AJ. Microtensile bond strength of different components of core veneered all-ceramic restorations. Dent Mater 2005;21:984-91. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dental.2005.03.013
  16. Aboushelib MN, de Kler M, van der Zel JM, Feilzer AJ. Microtensile bond strength and impact energy of fracture of CAD-veneered zirconia restorations. J Prosthodont 2009;18: 211-6. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1532-849X.2008.00412.x
  17. Aboushelib MN, Kleverlaan CJ, Feilzer AJ. Microtensile bond strength of different components of core veneered all-ceramic restorations. Part II: Zirconia veneering ceramics. Dent Mater 2006;22:857-63. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dental.2005.11.014
  18. Taskonak B, Borges GA, Mecholsky JJ Jr, Anusavice KJ, Moore BK, Yan J. The effects of viscoelastic parameters on residual stress development in a zirconia/glass bilayer dental ceramic. Dent Mater 2008;24:1149-55. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dental.2008.01.004
  19. Taskonak B, Mecholsky JJ Jr, Anusavice KJ. Residual stresses in bilayer dental ceramics. Biomaterials 2005;26:3235-41. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biomaterials.2004.08.025
  20. Tan JP, Sederstrom D, Polansky JR, McLaren EA, White SN. The use of slow heating and slow cooling regimens to strengthen porcelain fused to zirconia. J Prosthet Dent 2012;107:163-9. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0022-3913(12)60050-X
  21. Aboushelib MN, Kleverlaan CJ, Feilzer AJ. Microtensile bond strength of different components of core veneered all-ceramic restorations. Part 3: double veneer technique. J Prosthodont 2008;17:9-13.
  22. Benetti P, Della Bona A, Kelly JR. Evaluation of thermal compatibility between core and veneer dental ceramics using shear bond strength test and contact angle measurement. Dent Mater 2010;26:743-50. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dental.2010.03.019
  23. Benetti P, Pelogia F, Valandro LF, Bottino MA, Bona AD. The effect of porcelain thickness and surface liner application on the fracture behavior of a ceramic system. Dent Mater 2011;27:948-53. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dental.2011.05.009
  24. Scherrer SS, Cesar PF, Swain MV. Direct comparison of the bond strength results of the different test methods: a critical literature review. Dent Mater 2010;26:e78-93.
  25. Tam LE, Pilliar RM. Fracture toughness of dentin/resincomposite adhesive interfaces. J Dent Res 1993;72:953-9. https://doi.org/10.1177/00220345930720051801
  26. Ruse ND, Troczynski T, MacEntee MI, Feduik D. Novel fracture toughness test using a notchless triangular prism (NTP) specimen. J Biomed Mater Res 1996;31:457-63. https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1097-4636(199608)31:4<457::AID-JBM4>3.0.CO;2-K
  27. Tam LE, Khoshand S, Pilliar RM. Fracture resistance of dentin- composite interfaces using different adhesive resin layers. J Dent 2001;29:217-25. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0300-5712(01)00004-5
  28. Anunmana C, Anusavice KJ, Mecholsky JJ Jr. Interfacial toughness of bilayer dental ceramics based on a short-bar, chevron-notch test. Dent Mater 2010;26:111-7. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dental.2009.09.003
  29. Pashley DH, Sano H, Ciucchi B, Yoshiyama M, Carvalho RM. Adhesion testing of dentin bonding agents: a review. Dent Mater 1995;11:117-25. https://doi.org/10.1016/0109-5641(95)80046-8
  30. Phrukkanon S, Burrow MF, Tyas MJ. The influence of crosssectional shape and surface area on the microtensile bond test. Dent Mater 1998;14:212-21. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0109-5641(98)00034-7