Literature DB >> 9781864

Attempted evaluation of three porcelain repair systems--what are we really testing?

R G Chadwick1, A G Mason, W Sharp.   

Abstract

Porcelain restorations are widely used in restorative dentistry with general success. On occasion however, fracture of the porcelain occurs. Sometimes a repair may be attempted using resin composite and one of the many bonding systems available. This in vitro investigation sought to determine and compare the shear bond strengths between a visible light-cured resin composite (Prisma TPH) and dental porcelain (Matchmaker Porcelain) for three different bonding systems (Scotchbond Multipurpose Plus (SMP); One-Step (OS); DenTASTIC (D)) with a view to conducting a larger study to assist in material selection. All measurements were performed one week following the preparation and storage of specimens in distilled water, at 37 degrees C, using a Universal Testing Machine at a crosshead speed of 0.5 mm/min. Although the mean shear bond strengths differed significantly (P < 0.05) (OS > SMP) and the Weibull modulus value of SMP was significantly (P < 0.05) lower than both OS and D the almost exclusive cohesive mode of failure observed, within the porcelain itself, suggested that the test was more a reflection of the quality of the underlying porcelain than the union under investigation. It was thus concluded that the shear bond strength test employed here, and in other studies did not truly reflect the shear bond strength at the porcelain/composite interface and that a more meaningful test should be developed. The observed cohesive failure may account for repeated clinical failures of porcelain repairs where bonding to an inherently flawed porcelain structure inevitably results in further failure.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  1998        PMID: 9781864     DOI: 10.1046/j.1365-2842.1998.00283.x

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Oral Rehabil        ISSN: 0305-182X            Impact factor:   3.837


  5 in total

1.  Apparent interfacial fracture toughness of resin/ceramic systems.

Authors:  A Della Bona; K J Anusavice; J J Mecholsky
Journal:  J Dent Res       Date:  2006-11       Impact factor: 6.116

2.  Effect of four different surface treatments on shear bond strength of three porcelain repair systems: An in vitro study.

Authors:  Ritesh Gourav; Padma Ariga; Ashish R Jain; Jacob Mathew Philip
Journal:  J Conserv Dent       Date:  2013-05

3.  Shear bond strength between alumina substrate and prosthodontic resin composites with various adhesive resin systems.

Authors:  Yousef A AlJehani; Jagan K Baskaradoss; Amrita Geevarghese; Marey A AlShehry; Pekka K Vallittu
Journal:  BMC Oral Health       Date:  2015-05-02       Impact factor: 2.757

4.  Effect of various intraoral repair systems on the shear bond strength of composite resin to zirconia.

Authors:  In-Hae Han; Dong-Wan Kang; Chae-Heon Chung; Han-Cheol Choe; Mee-Kyoung Son
Journal:  J Adv Prosthodont       Date:  2013-08-31       Impact factor: 1.904

5.  Repair bond strength of composite resin to zirconia restorations after different thermal cycles.

Authors:  Serkan Çınar; Ömer Kırmalı
Journal:  J Adv Prosthodont       Date:  2019-10-30       Impact factor: 1.904

  5 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.