PURPOSE: The objective of this study was to evaluate the effect of four repair methods on the fracture load of repaired ceramic-fused-to-metal crowns. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Metal-ceramic crowns were fractured, and the failure load was measured. The fractured metal-ceramic crowns (n = 9) were assigned randomly to the following treatment groups: (1) hydrofluoric acid (9.5%) etching, (2) air-particle abrasion (50 microm Al(2)O(3)), (3) silica coating (30 microm SiO(x)), and (4) the application of a layer of glass fiber-reinforced composite (FRC) (thickness: 0.12 mm) on the repair surface. The crowns were repaired with a highly filled resin composite and subjected to 3 repair cycles (n = 27). All specimens were stored in water at 37 degrees C for 24 hours and then thermocycled (6000 cycles, 5 degrees C to 55 degrees C). The fracture load values for final failure of intact and repaired crowns were measured with a universal testing machine, and failure types were recorded. RESULTS: No significant differences (p > 0.05) were found between the final failure values for the groups treated with 9.5% hydrofluoric acid (376 N) and airborne particle abrasion with either Al(2)O(3) (432 N) or SiO(x) (582 N) followed by silanization, respectively. Significantly, higher (p < 0.0001) final failure values (885 N) were obtained with the use of the FRC layer when compared with the other repaired groups. There was no significant difference (p > 0.05) between the final fracture load of intact crowns (872 N) and those repaired with FRC (885 N) (One-way ANOVA with repeated measures, Bonferroni test). No significant difference in fracture loads was found between the 1st, 2nd, and 3rd repair cycles (558 N, 433 N, 485 N, respectively). Failure sites were predominantly at the alloy/veneering resin interface in Group 1; Groups 2 and 3 both showed more cohesive failures than Group 1. In the case of FRC, the failure pattern was exclusively cohesive between the two laminates of FRC layer. CONCLUSIONS: The conditioning methods (Groups 1 to 3) of the repair surfaces did not show differences between each other; each resulted in mean fracture loads at lower levels than that of the intact crowns. Addition of an FRC layer increased the fracture load to the level of intact crowns. This suggests that the use of FRC in repairs of metal-ceramic crowns might be a viable option. Copyright (c) 2006 by The American College of Prosthodontists
PURPOSE: The objective of this study was to evaluate the effect of four repair methods on the fracture load of repaired ceramic-fused-to-metal crowns. MATERIALS AND METHODS:Metal-ceramic crowns were fractured, and the failure load was measured. The fractured metal-ceramic crowns (n = 9) were assigned randomly to the following treatment groups: (1) hydrofluoric acid (9.5%) etching, (2) air-particle abrasion (50 microm Al(2)O(3)), (3) silica coating (30 microm SiO(x)), and (4) the application of a layer of glass fiber-reinforced composite (FRC) (thickness: 0.12 mm) on the repair surface. The crowns were repaired with a highly filled resin composite and subjected to 3 repair cycles (n = 27). All specimens were stored in water at 37 degrees C for 24 hours and then thermocycled (6000 cycles, 5 degrees C to 55 degrees C). The fracture load values for final failure of intact and repaired crowns were measured with a universal testing machine, and failure types were recorded. RESULTS: No significant differences (p > 0.05) were found between the final failure values for the groups treated with 9.5% hydrofluoric acid (376 N) and airborne particle abrasion with either Al(2)O(3) (432 N) or SiO(x) (582 N) followed by silanization, respectively. Significantly, higher (p < 0.0001) final failure values (885 N) were obtained with the use of the FRC layer when compared with the other repaired groups. There was no significant difference (p > 0.05) between the final fracture load of intact crowns (872 N) and those repaired with FRC (885 N) (One-way ANOVA with repeated measures, Bonferroni test). No significant difference in fracture loads was found between the 1st, 2nd, and 3rd repair cycles (558 N, 433 N, 485 N, respectively). Failure sites were predominantly at the alloy/veneering resin interface in Group 1; Groups 2 and 3 both showed more cohesive failures than Group 1. In the case of FRC, the failure pattern was exclusively cohesive between the two laminates of FRC layer. CONCLUSIONS: The conditioning methods (Groups 1 to 3) of the repair surfaces did not show differences between each other; each resulted in mean fracture loads at lower levels than that of the intact crowns. Addition of an FRC layer increased the fracture load to the level of intact crowns. This suggests that the use of FRC in repairs of metal-ceramic crowns might be a viable option. Copyright (c) 2006 by The American College of Prosthodontists
Authors: Andrea Scribante; Pekka K Vallittu; Mutlu Özcan; Lippo V J Lassila; Paola Gandini; Maria Francesca Sfondrini Journal: Biomed Res Int Date: 2018-10-22 Impact factor: 3.411