OBJECTIVE: To use fractographic principles to classify the mode of failure of resin composite bonded to ceramic specimens after microtensile testing. METHODS: A leucite-based ceramic (IPS Empress)-E1) and a lithia disilicate-based ceramic (IPS Empress2)-E2) were selected for the study. Fifteen blocks of E1 and E2 were polished through 1 microm alumina abrasive. The following ceramic surface treatments were applied to three blocks of each ceramic: (1) 9.5% hydrofluoric acid (HF) for 2 min; (2) 4% acidulated phosphate fluoride (APF) for 2 min; (3) Silane coating (S); (4) HF+S; (5) APF+S. An adhesive resin and a resin composite were applied to all treated surfaces and light cured. Twenty bar specimens for each group were prepared from the composite-ceramic blocks and stored in 37 degrees C distilled water for 30 days before loading to failure under tension in an Instron testing machine. Fracture surfaces were examined using scanning electron microscopy and X-ray dot mapping. Statistical analysis was performed using one-way ANOVA, Duncan's multiple range test, and Weibull analyses. RESULTS: Similar surface treatments were associated with significantly different bond strengths and modes of failures for E1 and E2. All fractures occurred within the adhesion zone. The microstructural difference between etched E1 and E2 ceramics was a major controlling factor on adhesion. SIGNIFICANCE: The quality of the bond should not be assessed based on bond strength data alone. Mode of failure and fractographic analyses should provide important information leading to predictions of clinical performance limits.
OBJECTIVE: To use fractographic principles to classify the mode of failure of resin composite bonded to ceramic specimens after microtensile testing. METHODS: A leucite-based ceramic (IPS Empress)-E1) and a lithia disilicate-based ceramic (IPS Empress2)-E2) were selected for the study. Fifteen blocks of E1 and E2 were polished through 1 microm alumina abrasive. The following ceramic surface treatments were applied to three blocks of each ceramic: (1) 9.5% hydrofluoric acid (HF) for 2 min; (2) 4% acidulated phosphate fluoride (APF) for 2 min; (3) Silane coating (S); (4) HF+S; (5) APF+S. An adhesive resin and a resin composite were applied to all treated surfaces and light cured. Twenty bar specimens for each group were prepared from the composite-ceramic blocks and stored in 37 degrees C distilled water for 30 days before loading to failure under tension in an Instron testing machine. Fracture surfaces were examined using scanning electron microscopy and X-ray dot mapping. Statistical analysis was performed using one-way ANOVA, Duncan's multiple range test, and Weibull analyses. RESULTS: Similar surface treatments were associated with significantly different bond strengths and modes of failures for E1 and E2. All fractures occurred within the adhesion zone. The microstructural difference between etched E1 and E2 ceramics was a major controlling factor on adhesion. SIGNIFICANCE: The quality of the bond should not be assessed based on bond strength data alone. Mode of failure and fractographic analyses should provide important information leading to predictions of clinical performance limits.
Authors: André Mallmann; Renata Marques de Melo; Verbênia Estrela; Fernanda Pelogia; Laura Campos; Marco Antonio Bottino; Luiz Felipe Valandro Journal: J Appl Oral Sci Date: 2007-08 Impact factor: 2.698
Authors: Flávia B Pazinatto; Fernanda A Lopes; Luiz Marquezini Junior; Fabrício L A de Castro; Maria Teresa Atta Journal: J Appl Oral Sci Date: 2006-12 Impact factor: 2.698