Gee C, Weddell J N, Swain M V
Faculty of Dentistry, University of Otago, Dunedin, New Zealand.
Faculty of Dentistry, Kuwait University, Kuwait.
Dent Mater. 2017 Sep;33(9):1004-1011. doi: 10.1016/j.dental.2017.06.007. Epub 2017 Jun 26.
To quantify the adhesion of two bonding approaches of zirconia to more aesthetic glass-ceramic materials using the Schwickerath (ISO 9693-2:2016) three point bend (3PB) [1] test to determine the fracture initiation strength and strain energy release rate associated with stable crack extension with this test and the Charalamabides et al. (1989) [2] four point bend (4PB) test.
Two glass-ceramic materials (VITABLOCS Triluxe forte, Vita Zahnfabrik, Germany and IPS.emax CAD, Ivoclar Vivadent, Liechtenstein) were bonded to sintered zirconia (VITA InCeram YZ). The former was resin bonded using a dual-cure composite resin (Panavia F 2.0, Kuraray Medical Inc., Osaka, Japan) following etching and silane conditioning, while the IPS.emax CAD was glass bonded (IPS e.max CAD Crystall/Connect) during crystallization of the IPS.emax CAD. Specimens (30) of the appropriate dimensions were fabricated for the Schwickerath 3PB and 4PB tests. Strength values were determined from crack initiation while strain energy release rate values were determined from the minima in the force-displacement curves with the 3PB test (Schneider and Swain, 2015) [3] and for 4PB test from the plateau region of stable crack extension.
Strength values for the resin and glass bonded glass ceramics to zirconia were 22.20±6.72MPa and 27.02±3.49MPa respectively. The strain energy release rates for the two methods used were very similar and for the glass bonding, (4PB) 15.14±5.06N/m (or J/m) and (3PB) 16.83±3.91N/m and resin bonding (4PB) 8.34±1.93N/m and (3PB) 8.44±2.81N/m respectively. The differences in strength and strain energy release rate for the two bonding approaches were statistically significant (p<0.05). SEM observations showed fracture occurred adhesively for the resin bonding and cohesively for the glass bonding.
The present results indicate 3PB and 4PB tests have very similar values for the strain energy release rate determination. However while strength tests reveal minimal differences between resin and glass bonding, strain energy release rates for the latter are superior for bonding CAD/CAM milled glass-ceramics to zirconia.
使用施维克拉特(ISO 9693-2:2016)三点弯曲(3PB)[1]试验对氧化锆与更美观的玻璃陶瓷材料的两种粘结方法的粘结力进行量化,以确定与该试验中稳定裂纹扩展相关的断裂起始强度和应变能释放率,以及查拉拉马比德斯等人(1989年)[2]的四点弯曲(4PB)试验。
将两种玻璃陶瓷材料(德国维他公司的VITABLOCS Triluxe forte和列支敦士登义获嘉伟瓦登特公司的IPS.emax CAD)粘结到烧结氧化锆(VITA InCeram YZ)上。前者在蚀刻和硅烷处理后使用双固化复合树脂(日本大阪可乐丽医疗公司的Panavia F 2.0)进行树脂粘结,而IPS.emax CAD在IPS.emax CAD结晶过程中进行玻璃粘结(IPS e.max CAD Crystall/Connect)。制备了尺寸合适的试样(30个)用于施维克拉特3PB和4PB试验。强度值由裂纹起始时确定,而应变能释放率值由3PB试验中力-位移曲线的最小值确定(施耐德和斯温,2015年)[3],4PB试验则由稳定裂纹扩展的平稳区域确定。
树脂粘结和玻璃粘结的玻璃陶瓷与氧化锆的强度值分别为22.20±6.72MPa和27.02±3.49MPa。所使用的两种方法的应变能释放率非常相似,玻璃粘结的(4PB)为15.14±5.06N/m(或J/m),(3PB)为16.83±3.91N/m;树脂粘结的(4PB)为8.34±1.93N/m,(3PB)为8.44±2.81N/m。两种粘结方法在强度和应变能释放率上的差异具有统计学意义(p<0.05)。扫描电子显微镜观察表明,树脂粘结的断裂为粘结性断裂,玻璃粘结的断裂为内聚性断裂。
目前的结果表明,3PB和4PB试验在确定应变能释放率方面的值非常相似。然而,虽然强度试验显示树脂粘结和玻璃粘结之间差异极小,但后者在将CAD/CAM铣削玻璃陶瓷粘结到氧化锆方面的应变能释放率更优。