| Literature DB >> 28408950 |
Ahmed A Madfa1, Xiao-Guang Yue2.
Abstract
Alumina- and zirconia-based ceramic dental restorations are designed to repair functionality as well as esthetics of the failed teeth. However, these materials exhibited several performance deficiencies such as fracture, poor esthetic properties of ceramic cores (particularly zirconia cores), and difficulty in accomplishing a strong ceramic-resin-based cement bond. Therefore, improving the mechanical properties of these ceramic materials is of great interest in a wide range of disciplines. Consequently, spatial gradients in surface composition and structure can improve the mechanical integrity of ceramic dental restorations. Thus, this article reviews the current status of the functionally graded dental prostheses inspired by the dentino-enamel junction (DEJ) structures and the linear gradation in Young's modulus of the DEJ, as a new material design approach, to improve the performance compared to traditional dental prostheses. This is a remarkable example of nature's ability to engineer functionally graded dental prostheses. The current article opens a new avenue for recent researches aimed at the further development of new ceramic dental restorations for improving their clinical durability.Entities:
Keywords: Alumina; Dental ceramics; Dental multilayer; Dentino-enamel junction; Functionally graded materials; Zirconia
Year: 2015 PMID: 28408950 PMCID: PMC5382785 DOI: 10.1016/j.jdsr.2015.07.001
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Jpn Dent Sci Rev ISSN: 1882-7616
Figure 1Models of biocomposites. (a) Perfectly staggered mineral inclusions embedded in protein matrix. (b) A tension–shear chain model of biocomposites in which the tensile regions of protein are eliminated to emphasize the load transfer within the composite structure. (c) The free body diagram of a mineral crystal.
Some studies on the mechanical properties of the human dental enamel.
| Author(s) | Surface and site | Hardness (GPa) | Elastic modulus (GPa) |
|---|---|---|---|
| Stanford et al. | Variable (cusp) | – | 47.5 |
| Cross section (side) | 30.3 | ||
| Top surface (occlusal) | 8.96 | ||
| Stanford et al. | – | ||
| Variable (cusp) | 47.5 ± 5.5 | ||
| Cross section (side) | 33 ± 2.1 | ||
| Variable (cusp) | 20 ± 6.2 | ||
| Variable (cusp) | 46.2 ± 4.8 | ||
| Cross section (side) | 32.4 ± 4.1 | ||
| Top surface (side) | 9.65 ± 3.45 | ||
| Craig et al. | Top surface | – | 84.1 ± 6.2 |
| Cross section | 77.9 ± 54.8 | ||
| Tyldesley | – | – | 131 ± 16 |
| Reich et al. | Top surface | – | 76.5 |
| Staines et al. | Top surface | – | 83 ± 8 |
| Xu et al. | Top surface | 3.23 ± 0.38 | – |
| Cross section | 3.03 ± 0.09 | ||
| Cuy et al. | Cross section: | 2.7–6.4 | 47–120 |
| Outer enamel | >6 | >115 | |
| EDJ | <3 | <70 | |
| Zhou et al. | Top surface | 5.7–3.6 | 104–70 |
| Ge et al. | Top surface: | 4.3 ± 0.8 | 83.4 ± 7.1 |
| Rod | 1.1 ± 0.3 | 39.5 ± 4.1 | |
| Interrod | |||
| Mahoney et al. | Cross section (primary molar) | 4.9 ± 0.4 | 80.4 ± 7.7 |
| Marshall et al. | Cross section (EDJ area) | 3.51 ± 0.13 | 63.55 ± 1.46 |
| Fong et al. | Top surface | 4.78 ± 0.36 | 98.3 ± 5.9 |
| Cross section | 4.53 ± 0.26 | 95.6 ± 4.9 | |
| Habelitz et al. | Top surface | 3.8 ± 0.31 | 87.5 ± 2.1 |
| Cross section | 3.3 ± 0.35 | 72.7 ± 4.4 | |
| Head of rod | 4.3 ± 0.4 | 88.0 ± 8.6 | |
| Tail of rod | 3.7 ± 0.4 | 80.3 ± 7.2 | |
| Interrod | 3.9 ± 0.4 | 86.4 ± 11.7 | |
| Habelitz et al. | Cross section | 3.2 ± 0.4 | 74 ± 4 |
| 3.7 ± 0.5 | 80 ± 9.1 | ||
| Barbour et al. | Top surface | 4.81 ± 0.15 | 99.6 ± 1.8 |
| 4.77 ± 0.13 | 101.9 ± 1.6 | ||
| 4.75 ± 0.12 | 105.2 ± 1.3 | ||
Figure 2Elastic modulus distribution in natural dentino-enamel junction.
Figure 3Morphology of the graded zone. (a) Schematic of graded structure. (b) Section view of graded zone of glass-infiltrated yttria stabilized zirconia.
Figure 4Schematic of the conventional sharp restoration and the new graded approach.
Figure 5Cross-sectional view of a graded glass-alumina in (a) and graded glass-zirconia structure (b), respectively.