Effect of surface treatmet on the shear bond strength of a zirconia core to veneering ceramic

Mi-Sun Choi; Young-Soo Kim; Kyu-Won Suh; Jae-Jun Ryu

doi:10.4047/jkap.2009.47.2.199

Journal List > J Korean Acad Prosthodont > v.47(2) > 1034577

Go to TopGo to Top Go to BottomGo to Bottom

TOOLS

Choi, Kim, Suh, and Ryu: Effect of surface treatmet on the shear bond strength of a zirconia core to veneering ceramic

ORIGINAL ARTICLE

J Korean Acad Prosthodont 2009;47(2):199-205.

Published online: 18 December 2009

DOI: https://doi.org/10.4047/jkap.2009.47.2.199

Effect of surface treatmet on the shear bond strength of a zirconia core to veneering ceramic

Mi-Sun Choi, DDS¹, Young-Soo Kim, DDS, MSD, PhD², Kyu-Won Suh, MSD, DDS, PhD³, Jae-Jun Ryu, DDS, MSD, PhD^3,^∗

^¹Graduate student, Department of Esthetic Restorative Dentistry, Graduate School of Clinical Dentistry, Korea University

^²Associate Professor, Department of Esthetic Restorative Dentistry, Graduate School of Clinical Dentistry, Korea University

^³Professor, Department of Esthetic Restorative Dentistry, Graduate School of Clinical Dentistry, Korea University

Corresponding Author: Jae-Jun Ryu Korea University Ansan Hospital, Gojan 1-Dong, Danwon-Gu, Gyunggi-Do, 152-707, Korea +82 31 412 5370: e-mail, koprosth@unitel.co.kr

Received 29 September 200819 December 2008 Accepted 13 April 2009

This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Non-Commercial License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/3.0/) which permits unrestricted non-commercial use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

Abstract

Purpose

The purpose of this research was to evaluate the shear bond strength between zirconia core and veneer ceramic after surface treatment.

Material and methods

Zirconia cores (N = 40, n = 10, 10 mm×10 mm×3 mm) were fabricated according to the manufacturers’ instructions and ultrasonically cleaned. The veneering ceramics (thickness 3 mm) were built and fired onto the zirconia core materials. Four groups of specimens with different surface treatment were prepared. Group I: without any pretreatment, Group II: treated with sandblasting, Group III: treated with liner, Group IV: treated with sandblasting and liner. The shear bond strength was tested in a universal testing machine. Data were compared with an ANOVA and Scheffe ′ post hoc test (P = .05).

Results

The shear bond strength of group VI was significantly higher than the other groups.

Conclusion

Both mechanically and chemically treated simultaneously on zirconia core surface influenced the shear bond strength between the core and veneering ceramic in all-ceramic systems.

Keywords: all-ceramic, zirconia, shear bond strength, sandblasting, liner

REFERENCES

1.Du ¨ ndar M., Ozcan M., Go ¨kc¸e B., Co ¨mlekog ̆lu E., Leite F., Valandro LF. Comparison of two bond strength testing methodologies for bilayered all-ceramics. Dent Mater. 2007. 23:630–6.

2.Al-Dohan HM., Yaman P., Dennison JB., Razzoog ME., Lang BR. Shear strength of core-veneer interface in bilayered ceramics. J Prosthet Dent. 2004. 91:349–55.

3.Daftary F.., Donovan T. Effect of four pretreatment techniques on porcelain-to-metal bond strength. J Prosthet Dent. 1986. 58:535–40.

4.Kelly JR. Clinically relevant approach to failure testing of all-ceramic restorations. J Prosthet Dent. 1999. 81:652–61.

5.Braga RR., Ballester RY., Daronch M. Influence of time and adhesive system on the extrusion shear strength between feldspathic porcelain and bovine dentin. Dent Mater. 2000. 16:303–10.

6.Derand T., Molin M., Kvam K. Bond strength of composite luting cement to zirconia ceramic surfaces. Dent Mater. 2005. 21:1158–62.

7.Du ¨ndar M., Ozcan M., Co ¨mlekoglu E., Gu ¨ngo ¨r MA., Artunc¸ C. Bond strengths of veneering ceramics to reinforced ceramic core materials. Int J Prosthodont. 2005. 18:71–2.

8.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.

9.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.

10.Borges GA., Sophr AM., de Goes MF., Sobrinho LC., Chan DC. Effect of etching and airborne particle abrasion on the microstructure of different dental ceramics. J Prosthet Dent. 2003. 89:479–88.

11.White SN., Miklus VG., McLaren EA., Lang LA., Caputo AA. Flexural strength of a layered zirconia and porcelain dental all-ceramic system. J Prosthet Dent. 2005. 94:125–31.

12.Sundh A., Molin M., Sjo ¨gren G. Fracture resistance of yttrium oxide partially-stabilized zirconia all-ceramic bridges after veneering and mechanical fatigue testing. Dent Mater. 2005. 21:476–82.

13.Guazzato M., Albakry M., Ringer SP., Swain MV. Strength, fracture toughness and microstructure of a selection of all-ceramic materials. Part II. Zirconia-based dental ceramics. Dent Mater. 2004. 20:449–56.

14.Sundh A., Sjo ¨gren G. A comparison of fracture strength of yttrium-oxide- partially-stabilized zirconia ceramic crowns with varying core thickness, shapes and veneer ceramics. J Oral Rehabil. 2004. 31:682–8.

15.Anusavice KJ., Dehoff PH., Fairhurst CW. Comparative evaluation of ceramic-metal bond tests using finite element stress analysis. J Dent Res. 1980. 59:608–13.

Fig. 1.

Specimens of sintered zirconia.

Fig. 2.

Test scheme.

Fig. 3.

Prepared specimen.

Fig. 4.

Shear bond strength test in Universal testing machine.

Fig. 5.

Mean and standard deviation of shear bond strength.

Fig. 6.

View of a debonded veneered ceramic specimen. Failure occurred in porcelain and core veneer interface.

Table I.

Mean of fracture strength and standard deviation (MPa)

	Group 1	Group 2	Group 3	Group 4
1	11.51	11.51	12.01	13.45
2	13.78	11.21	12.89	13.78
3	9.81	13.88	13.68	15.95
4	11.93	12.61	11.00	12.57
5	12.93	12.41	12.21	14.40
6	12.01	11.22	13.28	11.80
7	12.79	12.44	12.32	14.98
8	11.46	12.18	14.52	10.73
9	12.64	11.36	11.30	15.01
10	11.12	15.01	11.95	14.83
Mean	12.00	12.38	12.53	13.75
SD	1.11	1.24	1.08	1.63

Table II.

Failure pattern

	Group 1	Group 2	Group 3	Group 4
Failure	100%	100%	80%	60%
pattern	interfacial	Interfacial	interfacial	interfacial
			20%	40%
			ceramic	ceramic
			cohesive	cohesive

Table III.

Result of one-way ANOVA for shear bond strengths

	Sum of squares	Mean square	df	F value	P value
Between groups	17.221	5.74	3	3.481	.026∗
Within groups	59.373	1.649	36
Total	76.594		39

^∗ P < .05

Table IV.

Results of Scheffe ′Multiple comparisons for shear bond strengths

(I) Grou	p (J) Group	Mean Difference (I-J	) Standard error	P value
	2	-0.3846	0.57433	0.929
1	3	-0.527	0.57433	0.839
	4	-1.75230∗	0.57433	0.039∗
2	3 4	-0.1424 -1.3677	0.57433 0.57433	0.996 0.149
3	4	-1.2253	0.57433	0.227

^∗ P < .05

TOOLS

Similar articles