Publication: Tensile strength of bilayered ceramics and corresponding glass veneers
Issued Date
2014-01-01
Resource Type
ISSN
20057814
20057806
20057806
Other identifier(s)
2-s2.0-84904034816
Rights
Mahidol University
Rights Holder(s)
SCOPUS
Bibliographic Citation
Journal of Advanced Prosthodontics. Vol.6, No.3 (2014), 151-156
Suggested Citation
Chuchai Anunmana, Tharee Champirat, Bundhit Jirajariyavej Tensile strength of bilayered ceramics and corresponding glass veneers. Journal of Advanced Prosthodontics. Vol.6, No.3 (2014), 151-156. doi:10.4047/jap.2014.6.3.151 Retrieved from: https://repository.li.mahidol.ac.th/handle/20.500.14594/33770
Research Projects
Organizational Units
Authors
Journal Issue
Thesis
Title
Tensile strength of bilayered ceramics and corresponding glass veneers
Other Contributor(s)
Abstract
Purpose. 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. Materials and Methods. 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 mm2 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. Results. 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. Conclusion. 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. © 2014 The Korean Academy of Prosthodontics.