Hemalatha Konka¹, K Chandrasekharan Nair²*, Vahini Reddy³ and Divya Hegde⁴

¹Registrar Prosthodontist, Al Harkan Dental Hospital, Al Qassim, Saudi Arabia
²Professor Emeritus, Department of Prosthodontics, Sri Sankara Dental College, Akathumuri, Thiruvananthapuram, Kerala, India
³Former Professor of Prosthodontics, AECS Maaruti College of Dental Sciences, Bangalore, India
⁴Divya Hegde, Professor of Prosthodontics, BIDS, Bangalore, India

*Corresponding Author:K Chandrasekharan Nair, Professor Emeritus, Department of Prosthodontics, Sri Sankara Dental College, Akathumuri, Thiruvananthapuram, Kerala, India.

Received: March 07, 2022; Published: March 25, 2022

Abstract

Objective: To evaluate the shear bond strength of veneering porcelain to zirconia, Lithium disilicate and Nickel chromium alloy cores.

Materials and Methods: Rectangular samples of dimension 9x4x4mm were made in three different core materials viz. Zirconia, Lithium disilicate and Nickel chromium alloy. The bonding surface of the specimens were sandblasted. Feldspathic porcelain (cerinate) was applied on the cores and fired to form a 3mm thick veneer. The specimens were embedded in an acrylic block. These specimens were subjected to shear force in a universal testing machine. Load was applied at a cross head speed of 0.5mm per minute until the specimens fractured. The force required for fracturing was recorded. The broken specimens were examined under scanning electron microscope. Data analysis was done with factorial ANOVA.

Results: The maximum bond strength was seen between lithium disilicate core and the veneering ceramic (409.4N). The Least bond strength was between Zirconia core and the veneering ceramic (284.8N). The bond strength between Nickel chromium base metal alloy core specimens and the veneering ceramic was 310.2N. SEM images of lithium disilicate specimens showed predominantly cohesive failure. SEM of Zirconia specimens showed mixed adhesive and cohesive failures. SEM of Nickel Chromium specimens showed cohesive failure. Energy dispersive microanalysis of the Lithium disilicate, metal ceramic and zirconia specimens showed mainly oxygen and silica on the surface.

Conclusions: All ceramic restorations with lithium disilicate core and feldspathic veneer can resist clinical failure due to fracture of the veneering ceramic. Delamination of the veneering ceramic can be frequent with Zirconia core.

Scanning electron microscopic analysis showed both adhesive and cohesive failures. Lithium Disilicate specimens showed predominantly cohesive failures. Multiple cracks and many pores were seen in the zirconia specimens and the failure was both adhesive and cohesive.

Electron Dispersive microanalysis showed mainly oxygen and silica as the chemical constituents present on the fractured surface.

Keywords:Zirconia; Lithium Disilicate; Nickel Chromium Alloys; Shear Bond Test; Elemental Analysis; SEM

References

1. Valderhaug JA. “15-year clinical evaluation of fixed prosthodontics”. Acta Odontologica Scandinavica 49 (1991): 35-40.
2. Sharkey S. “Metal ceramic versus all ceramic restorations: part I”. Journal of the Irish Dental Association 56 (2010): 196-199.
3. Sharkey S. “Metal-ceramic versus all-ceramic restorations: part III”. Journal of the Irish Dental Association 57 (2011): 110-113.
4. Tan K., et al. “A systemic review of the survival and complication rates of fixed partial dentures (FPDs) after an observation period of at least 5 years”. Clinical Oral Implants Research 15 (2004): 654-666.
5. Beuer F., et al. “High-strength CAD/CAM-fabricated veneering material sintered to zirconia copings-a new fabrication mode for all-ceramic restorations”. Dental Materials 25 (2009): 121-128.
6. Tinschert J., et al. “Lifetime of alumina- and zircoina ceramics used for crown and bridge restorations”. Journal of Biomedical Materials Research - Part B Applied Biomaterials 80 (2007): 317-321.
7. Sharkey S. “Metal ceramic versus all ceramic restorations: part I”. Journal of the Irish Dental Association 56 (2010): 196-199.
8. Holden JE., et al. “Comparison of the marginal fit of pressable ceramic to metal ceramic restorations”. Journal of Prosthodontics 18 (2009): 645-648.
9. Rekow ED., et al. “Performance of dental ceramics: challenges for improvements”. Journal of Dental Research 90 (2011): 937-952.
10. Choi BK., et al. “Shear bond strength of veneering porcelain to zirconia and metal cores”. The Journal of Advanced Prosthodontics 1 (2009): 129-135.
11. Dundar M., et al. “Bond strengths of veneering ceramics to reinforced ceramic core materials”. The International Journal of Prosthodontics 18 (2005): 71-72.
12. Al-Dohan HM., et al. “Shear strength of core-veneer interface in bi-layered ceramics”. Journal of Prosthetic Dentistry 91 (2004): 349-355.
13. Pretti M., et al. “Evaluation of the shear bond strength of the union between two Co Cr alloys and a dental ceramic”. Journal of Applied Oral Science 12 (2004): 280-284.
14. de Melo RM., et al. “Shear bond strengths of a ceramic system to alternative metal alloys”. Journal of Prosthetic Dentistry 93 (2005): 64-69.
15. Venkatachalam B., et al. “Ceramic Pressed to Metal versus Feldspathic Porcelain fused to metal: A Compartive study”. The International Journal of Prosthodontics 22 (2009): 94-100.
16. Zeynep Ozkurt. “Zirconia ceramic post systems”. Dental Materials Journal 29 (2010): 233-245.
17. Bernt Anderson. “Ceramic implant abutments for short span FPDs”. The International Journal of Prosthodontics 16 (2003): 640-646.
18.  

Citation

Citation: K Chandrasekharan Nair., et al. “Shear Bond Strength of Veneering Porcelain to Different Core Materials like Zirconia, Lithium Disilicate and Nickel Chromium Alloy - An Invitro Comparative Study". Acta Scientific Dental Sciences 6.4 (2022): 137-145.

Copyright

Copyright: © 2022 K Chandrasekharan Nair., et al. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.