Comparative strength of metal–ceramic and metal–composite bonds after extended thermocycling

DOI Web Site Web Site 被引用文献9件

抄録

<jats:p><jats:bold><jats:sc>summary</jats:sc> </jats:bold> The relative strengths of ceramic‐to‐metal and composite‐to‐metal bonds were compared after prolonged thermocycling. A total of 104 cast discs were produced from a gold alloy (Pontor LFC). A ceramic material (Duceragold) was fused to 24 discs to assess the strength of the metal–ceramic bond. An indirect composite material (New Metacolor Infis) was bonded to the remaining discs after surface preparation by Rocatec tribochemical coating, tin plating and priming with a phosphate conditioner [10‐methacryloyloxydecyl dihydrogen phosphate (MDP), Cesead II], priming with a thione conditioner (V‐Primer) or no treatment (unprimed control). Shear bond strengths were determined before and after thermocycling at 20 000 and 100 000 cycles. Pre‐thermocycling bond strengths were ranked in the order: metal–ceramic (40·5 MPa); Rocatec treatment (33·1 MPa) and tin plating–MDP (31·0 MPa); V‐Primer (20·9 MPa); and control (11·9 MPa). The bond strengths of the first three groups were not significantly different after 20 000 thermocycles, whereas those of the V‐Primer and control groups were significantly reduced. After extended thermocycling (100 000 cycles) the metal–ceramic group had the highest mean shear bond strength (28·5 MPa; <jats:italic>P</jats:italic> < 0·05), followed by the Rocatec (23·9 MPa) and tin plating–MDP (22·1 MPa) groups. The metal–ceramic bond was the most durable, although its strength was reduced by 29·6% after extended thermocycling. On the basis of these results, we recommend the Rocatec and tin plating–MDP systems for composite‐to‐metal bonding. Metal–ceramic bonding, however, is superior to metal–composite bonding within the limitation of the current experiment.</jats:p>

収録刊行物

被引用文献 (9)*注記

もっと見る

キーワード

詳細情報 詳細情報について

問題の指摘

ページトップへ