PDF
ePub
Citation
Print
Abstract
Purpose
The aim of this study was to compare the fracture toughness of currently available resin cements for zirconia restorations and evaluate the effect of water storage on fracture toughness of those resin cements.
Materials and methods
Single-edge notched specimens (3 mm × 6 mm × 25 mm) were prepared from three currently available dual cure resin cements for zirconia restorations (Panavia F 2.0, Clearfil SA luting and Zirconite). Each resin cement was divided into four groups: immersed in distilled water at 37°C for 1 (Control group), 30, 90, or 180 days (n=5). Specimens were loaded in three point bending at a cross-head speed of 0.1 mm/s. The maximum load at specimen failure was recorded and the fracture toughness (KIC) was calculated. Data were analyzed using one-way ANOVA and multiple comparison Scheffe′ test (α =.05).
Results
In control group, the mean KIC was 3.41 ± 0.64 MN ∙ m−1.5 for Panavia F, 2.0, 3.07 ± 0.41 MN ∙ m−1.5 for Zirconite, 2.58 ± 0.30 MN ∙ m−1.5 for Clearfil SA luting respectively, but statistical analysis revealed no significant difference between them. Although a gradual decrease of KIC in Panavia F 2.0 and gradual increases of KIC in Clearfil SA luting and Zirconite were observed with storage time, there were no significant differences between immersion time for each cement.
REFERENCES
1. Silva NR, Bonfante EA, Zavanelli RA, Thompson VP, Ferencz JL, Coelho PG. Reliability of metalloceramic and zirconia-based ceramic crowns. J Dent Res. 2010; 89:1051–6.
2. Palacios RP, Johnson GH, Phillips KM, Raigrodski AJ. Retention of zirconium oxide ceramic crowns with three types of cement. J Prosthet Dent. 2006; 96:104–14.
3. 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.
4. Komine F, Blatz MB, Matsumura H. Current status of zirconia-based fixed restorations. J Oral Sci. 2010; 52:531–9.
5. Martins LM, Lorenzoni FC, Melo AO, Silva LM, Oliveira JL, Oliveira PC, Bonfante G. Internal fit of two all-ceramic systems and metal-ceramic crowns. J Appl Oral Sci. 2012; 20:235–40.
6. Knobloch LA, Kerby RE, Seghi R, Berlin JS, Lee JS. Fracture toughness of resin-based luting cements. J Prosthet Dent. 2000; 83:204–9.
7. Mueller HJ. Fracture toughness and fractography of dental cements, lining, build-up, and filling materials. Scanning Microsc. 1990; 4:297–307.
8. BS 5447: 1997. Methods of test for plane strain fracture toughness (K IC) of metallic materials. 1997.
9. White SN, Yu Z. Physical properties of fixed prosthodontic, resin composite luting agents. Int J Prosthodont. 1993; 6:384–9.
10. Lloyd CH, Iannetta RV. The fracture toughness of dental composites. I. The development of strength and fracture toughness. J Oral Rehabil. 1982; 9:55–66.
11. Ilie N, Hickel R, Valceanu AS, Huth KC. Fracture toughness of dental restorative materials. Clin Oral Investig. 2012; 16:489–98.
12. Cook WD, Moopnar M. Influence of chemical structure on the fracture behaviour of dimethacrylate composite resins. Biomaterials. 1990; 11:272–6.
13. Yu¨ksel E, Zaimoğlu A. Influence of marginal fit and cement types on microleakage of all-ceramic crown systems. Braz Oral Res. 2011; 25:261–6.
14. Azar MR, Bagheri R, Burrow MF. Effect of storage media and time on the fracture toughness of resin-based luting cements. Aust Dent J. 2012; 57:349–54.
15. Miettinen VM, Narva KK, Vallittu PK. Water sorption, solubility and effect of post-curing of glass fibre reinforced polymers. Biomaterials. 1999; 20:1187–94.
16. Ferracane JL, Berge HX. Fracture toughness of experimental dental composites aged in ethanol. J Dent Res. 1995; 74:1418–23.
Table 1.
Experimental materials investigated
Table 2.
Mean and standard deviation in parenthesis for KIC (MN ∙ m−1.5) of three resin cements at 1 day, 30 days, 90 days and 180 days immersion in distilled water
XML Download