Graduate student, Department of Dentistry, University of Taubate (UNITAU), Taubate, Brazil.
Researcher, Department of Dental Materials and Prosthesis, Institute of Science and Technology, Sao Paulo State University, (UNESP), Sao Jose dos Campos, Brazil.
J Prosthet Dent. 2020 May;123(5):753.e1-753.e7. doi: 10.1016/j.prosdent.2019.12.021. Epub 2020 Feb 20.
Studies on the mechanical behavior of restorative materials bonded to tooth structure and considering the properties of the material and the bonding between both substrates are lacking.
The purpose of this in vitro study was to evaluate the hardness, fracture toughness, load-to-failure, cyclic fatigue, and stress distribution of 4 computer-aided design and computer-aided manufacturing (CAD-CAM) materials when bonded to a substrate similar to dentin (G10).
Disks (11×1.2 mm) of lithium disilicate (LD), feldspathic ceramic (FC), polymer-infiltrated ceramic (PC), and a nanohybrid composite resin (NC) were fabricated (n=45) and had their surfaces polished. Microhardness was measured by the Knoop indentation (19.61 N, 12 seconds, n=5). Indented specimens were subjected to biaxial flexural strength testing, and the fracture origin defect was measured to calculate fracture toughness (n=5). Forty disks from each material were adhesively bonded to G10. Half of the specimens were subjected to load-to-failure testing, and remaining specimens (n=20) were subjected to cyclic fatigue (400 N, 10 cycles). The test was suspended every 200 000 cycles, and specimens were examined for cracks, debonding, or catastrophic failure. Obtained data were evaluated by analysis of variance and the Tukey post hoc test (α=.05). Weibull analysis was also performed. A 3D model of the tested specimens was constructed in a design software program, and the stress distribution was evaluated by finite element analysis, with the application of a 100-N load normal to the restoration surface.
Hardness values with statistically significant differences were LD (540.4)>FC (474.6)>PC (176.6)>NC (58.26). Fracture toughness vales (MPa.m) and statistical significance were as follows: LD (2.25)=NC (2.46)>FC (1.14)=PC (1.18). Load-to-failure values (N) were LD (2881.6)=FC (2881.6)=PC (3200.6)>NC (2367.5). A specimen each of LD and NC fractured during the fatigue test, and LD and PC had a high percentage of subsurface cracks (55% and 75%, respectively). The FC had the lowest debonding rate after load-to-failure testing and no catastrophic fractures or cracks during fatigue.
The materials tested had different mechanical behaviors depending on the tests performed. Feldspathic ceramic had the best fatigue behavior when cemented to a dentin-like substrate.
缺乏对修复材料与牙体结构结合后的力学性能进行研究,且这些研究需要考虑材料特性和两种基底间的结合性能。
本体外研究的目的是评估 4 种计算机辅助设计和计算机辅助制造(CAD-CAM)材料与类似牙本质的基底(G10)结合后的硬度、断裂韧性、断裂载荷、循环疲劳和应力分布。
制作了锂硅玻璃(LD)、长石陶瓷(FC)、聚合物渗透陶瓷(PC)和纳米复合树脂(NC)的圆盘(11×1.2mm)(n=45),并对其表面进行了抛光。通过克努普压痕(19.61N,12 秒,n=5)测量显微硬度。对压痕试件进行双向弯曲强度测试,并测量起始缺陷以计算断裂韧性(n=5)。每种材料的 40 个圆盘均粘合到 G10 上。一半的试件进行断裂载荷测试,其余试件(n=20)进行循环疲劳(400N,10 次循环)。每 200000 次循环暂停一次,检查试件是否有裂纹、脱粘或灾难性失效。通过方差分析和 Tukey 事后检验(α=.05)对获得的数据进行评估。还进行了威布尔分析。在设计软件程序中构建了测试试件的 3D 模型,并通过有限元分析评估了应力分布,在修复体表面施加 100N 的法向载荷。
硬度值有统计学显著差异:LD(540.4)>FC(474.6)>PC(176.6)>NC(58.26)。断裂韧性值(MPa·m)和统计学意义如下:LD(2.25)=NC(2.46)>FC(1.14)=PC(1.18)。断裂载荷值(N)为 LD(2881.6)=FC(2881.6)=PC(3200.6)>NC(2367.5)。LD 和 NC 的各一个试件在疲劳试验中发生断裂,LD 和 PC 的亚表面裂纹比例较高(分别为 55%和 75%)。FC 在断裂载荷测试后的脱粘率最低,在疲劳试验中没有发生灾难性断裂或裂纹。
根据所进行的测试,测试材料具有不同的力学性能。长石陶瓷在粘合到类似牙本质的基底时具有最佳的疲劳性能。