Department of Prosthodontics, Faculty of Dentistry, Mahidol University, Bangkok, Thailand.
Department of Advanced General Dentistry, Faculty of Dentistry, Mahidol University, Bangkok, Thailand.
J Adv Prosthodont. 2014 Jun;6(3):151-6. doi: 10.4047/jap.2014.6.3.151. Epub 2014 Jun 24.
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.
Blocks of core ceramics (IPS e.max® Press and Lava™ Frame) were fabricated and veneered with their corresponding glass veneers. The bilayered blocks were cut into microbars; 8 mm in length and 1 mm(2) in cross-sectional area (n = 30/group). Additionally, monolithic microbars of these two veneers (IPS e.max® Ceram and Lava™ 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.
The mean microtensile bond strength of IPS e.max® Press/IPS e.max® Ceram (43.40 ± 5.51 MPa) was significantly greater than that of Lava™ Frame/Lava™ Ceram (31.71 ± 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™ Frame/Lava™ Ceram was comparable to the tensile strength of monolithic glass veneer of Lava™ Ceram, while the bond strength of bilayered IPS e.max® Press/IPS e.max® Ceram was significantly greater than tensile strength of monolithic IPS e.max® Ceram.
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.
研究两种全瓷系统之间的微拉伸结合强度;锂硅玻璃陶瓷和氧化锆核陶瓷与相应的玻璃贴面结合。
制作核陶瓷块(IPS e.max®Press 和 Lava™Frame),并用相应的玻璃贴面贴面。将双层块切割成微棒;长度为 8 毫米,横截面积为 1 毫米(2)(n = 30/组)。此外,还制备了这两种贴面的整体微棒(IPS e.max® Ceram 和 Lava™ Ceram;n = 30/组)。将获得的微棒在张力下测试直至断裂,并通过荧光黑光和扫描电子显微镜(SEM)检查微棒的断裂表面,以确定失效模式。采用单因素方差分析和 Dunnett's T3 检验,以 0.05 的显著性水平确定平均微拉伸结合强度的显著差异。
IPS e.max®Press/IPS e.max® Ceram 的平均微拉伸结合强度(43.40 ± 5.51 MPa)明显大于 Lava™Frame/Lava™ Ceram 的平均微拉伸结合强度(31.71 ± 7.03 MPa)(P<.001)。荧光黑光和 SEM 分析表明,大多数测试的微棒在贴面层内发生了内聚性断裂。此外,Lava™Frame/Lava™ Ceram 的结合强度与 Lava™ Ceram 的整体玻璃贴面的拉伸强度相当,而双层 IPS e.max®Press/IPS e.max® Ceram 的结合强度明显大于整体 IPS e.max® Ceram 的拉伸强度。
由于断裂部位主要发生在玻璃贴面内,并且大多数失效都远离界面区域,因此微拉伸结合强度测试可能不是一种适合评估结合完整性的测试方法。断裂力学方法,如界面断裂韧性,可能更适合代表两种材料之间的结合质量。