Next Article in Journal
Fatigue and Fracture Behavior of a Cold-Drawn Commercially Pure Aluminum Wire
Previous Article in Journal
Novel Osteointegrative Sr-Substituted Apatitic Cements Enriched with Alginate
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Materials
Volume 9
Issue 9
10.3390/ma9090765
materials-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles thumb_up
...
Endorse textsms
...
Comment
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Influence of the Conditioning Method for Pre-Sintered Zirconia on the Shear Bond Strength of Bilayered Porcelain/Zirconia

by
Sebastian Spintzyk
1,†,
Kikue Yamaguchi
2,†,
Tomofumi Sawada
1,*,
Christine Schille
1,
Ernst Schweizer
1,
Masahiko Ozeki
2 and
Jürgen Geis-Gerstorfer
1
1
Section Medical Materials Science & Technology, University Hospital Tübingen, Osiander Strasse 2-8, Tübingen 72076, Germany
2
Department of Implant Dentistry, Showa University School of Dentistry, 2-1-1 Kitasenzoku, Ota-ku, Tokyo 145-8515, Japan
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Materials 2016, 9(9), 765; https://doi.org/10.3390/ma9090765
Submission received: 3 August 2016 / Revised: 25 August 2016 / Accepted: 2 September 2016 / Published: 8 September 2016
(This article belongs to the Section Biomaterials)
Browse Figures
Versions Notes

Abstract

:
This study evaluated the bond strength of veneering porcelain with an experimental conditioner-coated zirconia. Pre-sintered Y-TZP specimens (n = 44) were divided in two groups based on conditioning type. After sintering, all sample surfaces were sandblasted and layered with veneering porcelain. Additionally, half of the specimens in each group underwent thermal cycling (10,000 cycles, 5–55 °C), and all shear bond strengths were measured. After testing, the failure mode of each fractured specimen was determined. Differences were tested by parametric and Fisher’s exact tests (α = 0.05). The differences in bond strength were not statistically significant. Adhesive fractures were dominantly observed for the non-thermal cycled specimens. After thermal cycling, the conditioner-coated group showed cohesive and mixed fractures (p = 0.0021), whereas the uncoated group showed more adhesive fractures (p = 0.0021). Conditioning of the pre-sintered Y-TZP did not change the shear bond strength of the veneering porcelain, but did improve the failure mode after thermal cycling.

1. Introduction

Commercial zirconia products are widely used not only as substrates of dental prostheses, but also as monolithic or full-contour restorations [1,2]. Based on a recent systematic review of bilayer ceramic restorations, zirconia-based single crowns have survival rates comparable with metal-ceramic single crowns [1]. Zirconia ceramics have superior mechanical properties that are similar to those of some metallic materials. Unfortunately, loss of retention and veneering ceramic fracturing are much more significant issues in zirconia-based ceramic restorations compared with metal-ceramic restorations [1].
To address the loss of retention issue, previous studies have indicated simple and clinically-reliable bonding methods in resin-bonded oxide ceramic restorations [3]. For ceramic fractures, complex mechanisms with a variety of risk factors are present in the oral cavity [4], making it difficult to identify the primary causes of chipping and delamination of veneering porcelain in clinical situations. However, sufficient bond strength between the veneering porcelain and the zirconia substructure is a key factor for the long-term clinical success of zirconia-based restorations [5].
For resolving failures of the veneering porcelain, various factors have been investigated in vitro using yttria-stabilized tetragonal zirconia polycrystal (Y-TZP) [6,7,8]. Sandblasting is the most widely-used surface treatment method of such systems, and can produce irregularities on zirconia surfaces to enhance the mechanical bonding [6]. Other factors (type of veneering material, veneering technique, number of firings, liner application, and cooling rate after sintering) can also influence the bond strength of the bilayered porcelain/zirconia [7,8]. In addition, some researchers have suggested that the framework design and thickness of the veneering porcelain must be considered [9,10]. Recently, alternative approaches including coating methods and plasma treatment for zirconia surfaces have been attempted for such studies [11,12].
At present, a number of complicated approaches have to be applied to zirconia surfaces to resolve these issues. However, the aforementioned factors can have either positive or negative effects on these systems. In particular, establishing the framework design is a technique-sensitive procedure that can easily influence the failure rates and fracture modes of the final restoration during manufacturing [3,13]. Furthermore, alternative approaches often require additional working time and/or special instrumentation. Consequently, it remains unclear how these approaches contribute to the bonding strength between the veneering porcelain and the zirconia surface during clinical use.
To establish a simplified and effective method for surface characterization, an alternative approach using an experimental slurry conditioner (a mixture of silicate ceramic and quartz) for promoting the adhesion between the veneering porcelain and the oxide ceramics is developed here [14]. This procedure can reduce the working time because this conditioner is simply applied on the pre-sintered zirconia surface prior to sintering. However, evidence of this conditioner’s impact on the bonding characteristics is inadequate at this time.
Thus, the purpose of this study is to test the shear bond strength between a veneering material and a commercial zirconia product treated with the conditioner before sintering, and evaluate the failure mode on its fractured surface. The null hypothesis was that the shear bond strength and failure mode in the conditioner-coated zirconia specimens would not improve compared with that of the uncoated zirconia specimens.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Materials

An experimental conditioner (Luxor Zirkonoxyd-Primer, Xplus 3, GmbH, Echzell, Germany) was obtained from the company [14]. The slurry conditioner consisted of a mixture of silicate ceramic and quartz, and contained SiO2 (74.1 wt %), Al2O3 (12.1 wt %) K2O (12.1 wt %), and Na2O (1.61 wt %) as the main components (>1 wt %) [15]. A commercial Y-TZP substrate (Nacera Pearl 1, Doceram, GmbH, Dortmund, Germany) and layering material (VM9, Vita Zahnfabrik, Bad Säckingen, Germany) were used.

2.2. Preparation of Zirconia Substrates

Forty-four rectangular specimens (25 × 12 × 2.5 mm3) were milled out from pre-sintered Y-TZP blanks (Nacera Pearl 1, Doceram GmbH, Dortmund, Germany) using a CAD/CAM system (CORiTEC 450i, imes-icore GmbH, Eiterfeld, Germany). The surface of each specimen was polished with #320 and #1200 grit carbide papers (CarbiMet, Buehler, GmbH, Düsseldorf, Germany). All specimens were divided into two groups before sintering (Figure 1). Half of the specimens (n = 22) were pre-treated with the conditioner using a brush to obtain a thin conditioner layer on its surface. The rest of the specimens (n = 22) underwent no further treatment, and were used as a reference group. All specimens were sintered at 1380 °C for 2 h in a dental furnace (VITA ZYrcomat, VITA Zahnfabrik, GmbH, Bad Säckingen, Germany) (Table 1). After sintering, the conditioner-coated specimens (n = 2) were examined using scanning electron microscopy (SEM) along with energy dispersive X-ray spectroscopy (EDX) for elemental analysis at 10 kV. The surface of each specimen was sputter-coated with Au-Pd then observed using SEM (LEO 1430, Carl Zeiss AG, Oberkochen, Germany) to confirm the presence of the conditioner layer.

2.3. Porcelain Layering

Prior to porcelain layering, the rest specimens (20 × 10 × 1.9 mm3, n = 20 per group) were sandblasted with 120 µm Al2O3 particles (Spezial-Edelkorund, Harnisch + Rieth, GmbH, Winterbach, Germany) at 0.2 MPa for 20 s according to the manufacturer’s instructions and cleaned by a steam cleaner. Sandblasting was performed vertically at a fixed distance of 20 mm between the specimen surface and the nozzle using a special metal holder. Both conditioner-coated and uncoated specimens (mean roughness Ra: 0.57 ± 0.12 μm and 0.40 ± 0.12 μm, respectively, measured using a contact profilometer, Perthometer SP6, Mahr GmbH, Göttingen, Germany) were veneered with feldspathic ceramic (VM9) using a layering technique. The porcelain layering procedure was comprised of five steps as follows: first and second wash-bake, first and second dentin, and glazing (Table 1). In order to standardize the layering process, each specimen was fixed using a brass jig (20 × 10 × 1.5 mm3) with a hole (5 mm diameter) corresponding to the center of the specimen (Figure 2a,b). The inner surface of the jig was coated with an isolating fluid (Carat, Hager, and Werken, Duisburg, Germany) to avoid adhesion of the veneering porcelain to the jig. Each porcelain powder was mixed with an appropriate amount of the respective liquid, and the mixture slurry was then filled into the jig (Figure 2c). After layering, the excess liquid was removed with tissue paper and the mold was carefully removed. Finally, each porcelain firing was performed in a dental furnace (Austromat 624, Dekema Dental-Keramiköfen, GmbH, Freilassing, Germany) according to the manufacturer’s instructions (Figure 2d).
Prior to testing the shear bond strength, half of the specimens in each group (n = 10) were subjected to thermal cycling for 10,000 cycles at alternating temperatures of 5 °C and 55 °C (70 s per cycle; dwelling time: 30 s, transfer time: 5 s) (Figure 1).

2.4. Shear Bond Strength Testing

Each specimen was fixed and placed in a metal holder which was connected with a universal testing machine (Z010, Zwick, GmbH, Ulm, Germany) (Figure 3a,b). Subsequently, the load was applied at the interface of each specimen using a special designed metal piston with a fixed carbide reversing plate (Figure 3c, black arrow) at a crosshead speed of 1.0 mm/min until debonding occurred according to ISO 10477 [16]. The shear bond strength was calculated in units of MPa using the maximum fracture load (N) divided by the bonding area (mm2) [17]. After testing, each fractured surface was analyzed by using stereomicroscopy (Wild Heerbrugg AG, Heerbrugg, Switzerland) or SEM. Failure modes were determined three different fracture patterns: adhesive, less than 33% of the porcelain remained on the zirconia surface; mixed, more than 33% but less than 66% of the porcelain remained on the zirconia surface (a combination of adhesive and cohesive fractures); and cohesive, more than 66% of the porcelain remained on the zirconia surface [18].

2.5. Data Analysis

Shear bond strength data were analyzed for normal distributions by the Shapiro-Wilks test and for variance equality by the Levene test. Bond strength results were then analyzed by a two-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) with conditioner application and thermal cycling as independent factors, followed by Tukey’s test for post-hoc comparisons. Descriptive statistics were applied using means and standard deviations. Failure mode results were analyzed by Fisher’s exact test with Benjamini-Hochberg multiple testing corrections [19]. Statistical analyses were performed by the software packages Excel Statistics 2010 (Social Survey Research Information Co., Ltd., Tokyo, Japan) and R version 3.2.3 (The R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria) at a level of significance of α = 0.05.

3. Results

3.1. Surface Analysis

SEM micrograph and EDX analysis of the conditioner-coated specimen after zirconia sintering are shown in Figure 4 and Figure 5, respectively. In the cross-sectional view, the whole surface was covered with a constant conditioner layer (approximately 5 µm) on the conditioner-coated specimen (Figure 4). The chemical elements of the conditioner-coated specimen surface were identified as sodium (Na), aluminum (Al), silicon (Si), potassium (K), and oxygen (O), whereas in the uncoated specimen only zirconia (Zr) and oxygen were identified (Figure 5). These findings confirmed the binding of the conditioner layer on the conditioner-coated specimen.

3.2. Shear Bond Strength

The shear bond strength data passed both the normality and equality tests for two-way ANOVA (p = 0.113 and 0.4007, respectively). The shear bond strengths ranged from 21.2 ± 5.8 MPa to 24.2 ± 5.2 MPa in these groups. The differences between the bond strengths of these groups were not significant, irrespective of thermal cycling (Table 2 and Table 3).

3.3. Analysis of Failure Modes

The distribution of different failure modes of each group is shown in Table 4. Without thermal cycling, adhesive fractures were dominantly observed in both conditioner-coated and uncoated specimens (Figure 6c), and there was no significant difference between the groups. Thermal cycling influenced the failure modes in different ways. Cohesive and mixed fractures (Figure 6d,e) were more common in the conditioner-coated group (p = 0.0021), whereas more adhesive fractures were observed in the uncoated group compared with the conditioner-coated group (p = 0.0021).

4. Discussion

This study focused on the influence of a specific conditioner method on the bonding of a zirconia surface with veneering porcelain. The shear bond strengths in the conditioner-coated specimens were not significantly different compared with those of the uncoated specimens, irrespective of thermal cycling. In the non-thermal cycled condition, adhesive fractures were dominantly observed in both types of specimens. On the other hand, after thermal cycling, cohesive and mixed fractures became more common in the conditioner-coated specimens, whereas higher numbers of adhesive fractures were observed in the uncoated specimens. Based on these findings, our null hypothesis was rejected.
The presence of the conditioner layer (approximately 5 µm) on the conditioner-coated specimens was confirmed by SEM-EDX (Figure 4 and Figure 5). Our approach using a conditioning method might be obtained, more or less, both chemical bonding and mechanical retention in the conditioner-coated specimens. One possible explanation for this behavior is that the experimental slurry conditioner infiltrated the pre-sintered zirconia surface and formed composite structures after sintering. According to a previous study [20], chemical bonding across the zirconia/glass ceramic interface was achieved by having thermodynamic stability as zirconia ions dissolve into the veneering porcelain. Thus, in this study, the chemical bonding between the Y-TZP surface and the conditioner layer might appear after sintering because the components of the conditioner are similar to those of the veneering porcelain. Moreover, mechanical retention was also obtained in the conditioner-coated specimens. Our assumption is supported by previous studies of synthetic, functionally-graded materials [21,22]. Qian et al. [21] formed graded glass/zirconia structures which were prepared by a coating glass-powder-containing slurry (different from our conditioner) onto Y-TZP surface before sintering. They explained that a certain degree of porosity existed in the pre-sintered zirconia, which could facilitate glass infiltration, a statement that is also reflected by our findings.
The bonding characteristics between Y-TZP and the veneering porcelain could be explained by the interaction between mechanical retention and chemical bonding forces [23]. The cause of porcelain fracture is unknown in clinical situations but might be associated with bond failure between them [24]. To evaluate the bonding characteristics in this study, shear bond strength testing was used as a relatively simple method compared to microtensile bond strength testing [25]. Without thermal cycling, the conditioner-coated specimens showed similar initial shear bond strength compared to the uncoated specimens. Prior to porcelain layering, both the conditioner-coated and uncoated specimens were sandblasted. In general, surface roughening methods, such as sandblasting, are used to obtain mechanical retention [9]. In particular, sandblasting could improve interfacial adhesion by cleaning the zirconia surface or enhancing high surface energy and wettability [26]. Consequently, in dense Y-TZP, sandblasted substrates show higher shear bond strengths with veneering porcelain compared to polished substrates [27]. In contrast, some previous studies have indicated that sandblasting is not necessary to enhance bond strength, because strong chemical bonds are established between polished zirconia and veneering materials during firing [5,28]. Moreover, sandblasting may cause microfractures that would reduce the functional strength and lead to premature and catastrophic failure in zirconia [29]. These conflicting results are dependent on the zirconia substrates, the veneering materials, and the sandblasting conditions such as particle size, treatment time, and air pressure. Unfortunately, our conditioning method did not enhance the bond strength, but it could eliminate the negative influence on Y-TZP.
Subsequently, the failure mode in the conditioner-coated specimens featured similar results, showing mainly adhesive failures compared to that in the uncoated specimens in the non-thermal cycled condition. Each failure mode was analyzed by measuring the amount of residual porcelain on the zirconia surface; only a small amount of porcelain remained on both experimental specimens. This was likely caused by the fact that surface modification did not improve the bond characteristics in both the uncoated and conditioner-coated specimens at this stage. This assumption may agree with previous studies of sandblasted zirconia materials, which were veneered with various porcelain materials and showed primary adhesive failures [25,30]. It is well known that the bond strength between the zirconia substrate and the veneering porcelain is the weakest link in layered structures [25]. Conversely, in another previous report, one sandblasted zirconia material that was veneered with seven different porcelain materials showed dominantly cohesive failures [31]. Furthermore, He et al. [27] showed dominantly mixed failure modes in the sandblasted specimens after sintering. These conflicting results were dependent on various factors. One possible explanation is that there is no clear and reliable evidence of failure mode classification for analyzing zirconia bonding characteristics to the veneering porcelain up to the present time. For instance, Guess et al. [17] analyzed the failure mode by measuring the residual veneering porcelain, like those examined in our study. When we applied our results to their classification, we identified a different result compared to this study. Thus, a variety of failure mode classifications exist and care should be taken when interpreting such data. In addition, even though zirconia specimens have rough surfaces after sandblasting, the failure modes depend on the sandblasting conditions. Sandblasting before zirconia sintering showed the shifting of failure modes, from mixed to cohesive, compared to that after zirconia sintering [27]. They explained that this difference was due to the fact that monoclinic phase of zirconia increased in volume after sandblasting, but this phase was not detected by reverse transformation; a monoclinic-to-tetragonal transformation may have occurred in the procedure of sandblasting before zirconia sintering. They also stated that an excessively rough surface might lead to stress concentration, which may consequently weaken the interfacial bonding between zirconia and porcelain. Thus, sandblasting conditions must be considered when discussing bond strength.
Thermal or/and mechanical cycling are used as conditions to simulate the artificial aging of zirconia bonding to the veneering porcelain [32,33]. In this study, in the thermal cycled condition, the conditioner-coated specimens showed similar shear bond strength compared to the uncoated specimens. These bond strengths were not significantly different compared to the initial bond strengths; our result is in agreement with previous studies. According to the aforementioned reports using different thermal conditions, bond strengths between different zirconia materials and veneering ceramics were not affected by thermal or/and mechanical cycling, and were evidently durable [17,32,33]. However, Y-TZP is susceptible to structural transformation from the tetragonal to the monoclinic phase under hydrothermal conditions (low-temperature degradation: LTD) [34]. Indeed, LTD is an aging phenomenon that occurs when the material is in contact with water [35]. One possible reason is that these thermal conditions were not long enough to cause a phase transformation because zirconia is a high rigid material. Thus, during this aging process, both specimens did not change in terms of shear bond strength.
By contrast, the distribution of failure modes differed noticeably. Thermal cycling promoted adhesive failures in the uncoated specimen whereas no adhesive failures were observed in the conditioner-coated specimens. This difference was due to the fact that thermal cycling may trigger the phase transformation at least in the uncoated specimens even though the fully-sintered Y-TZP has a lower volume fraction of pores compared to pre-sintered Y-TZP [36]. This conditioning method could protect from the surface flaws and microfractures after sandblasting due to the presence of the graded glass/zirconia structures in the conditioner-coated specimens, but small plastic deformation occurred in the uncoated specimens. In addition, thermal cycling might also influence and cause the degradation of the veneering porcelain. The risk of water contact in the conditioner-coated specimens might be lower compared to the uncoated specimens. Therefore, our assumption was that the weakest link was shifted from the interface between the conditioner and porcelain layers to the porcelain layer in the conditioner-coated specimens. Indeed, the synthetic, functionally-graded material architectures significantly reduced the stress concentration at interfaces and toughened all-ceramic restorations [19,37,38]. Therefore, in our study, the failure modes in the conditioner-coated specimens shifted from adhesive to mixed and cohesive after thermal cycling. Al-Dohan et al. [39] stated that adhesive failure did not occur in the presence of good bonding between compatible ceramic core and veneering materials. To summarize, conditioner-coated specimens did not negatively affect the shear bond strength to the veneering porcelain, but did enhance the failure mode after thermal cycling.
Alternative approaches of zirconia substrate modification have been reported by in vitro studies [40,41]. Porous zirconia, fabricated by adding pore-forming agents before sintering, showed strong shear bond strength against the veneering porcelain [40]. However, increasing the porosity of the zirconia leads to reduced flexural strength [40,41]. In contrast, our conditioner-coated specimens had less damage liability with regards to zirconia compared to the use of porous zirconia and zirconia sandblasted before sintering due to the presence of an intermediate layer.
Furthermore, in our previous report [15], the conditioner-coating zirconia with subsequent sandblasting inhibited the decrease of the shear bond strength to resin cement after thermal cycling, indicating improvements concerning the failure mode. Together with these results, the combination of conditioner application before sintering and sandblasting after sintering may improve both zirconia bonding situations simultaneously. Thus, this conditioning method is simple, safe, and economic compared with alternative treatments. However, we did not investigate the mechanical properties of the conditioner-coated zirconia. In addition, many types of commercial zirconia and veneering materials are present in the dental market [9,25]. These manufacturing procedures are different even though these materials share a similar chemical structure. Thus, for clinical use, further studies are needed to clarify the influence on the mechanical properties concerning this conditioner application on different zirconia surfaces.

5. Conclusions

Within the limitations of this in vitro study, the conclusions are as follows:
  • Conditioner-coated zirconia specimens did not show decreased shear bond strength compared with uncoated zirconia specimens, irrespective of thermal cycling;
  • In the analysis of fractured specimen surfaces, adhesive fractures were dominantly observed in both conditioner-coated and uncoated zirconia specimens without thermal cycling; and
  • In contrast, after thermal cycling the conditioner-coated zirconia specimens predominantly showed cohesive and mixed fractures (p = 0.0021), whereas uncoated zirconia specimens showed higher numbers of adhesive fractures (p = 0.0021).
Thus, this conditioner method on pre-sintered Y-TZP did not change the shear bond strength of the veneering porcelain, but led to improved failure modes after thermal cycling.

Acknowledgments

The authors are grateful to Doceram Medical Ceramics for providing the Y-TZP blanks, Xplus 3 for providing the conditioner, and Dekema Dental-Keramiköfen for supporting the dental furnace. The authors would also like to give special thanks to B.A. Rolf Ebert from Laser Add Center (LAC, Selb, Germany), Dipl.-Ing. Evgin Bugdaci from Doceram Medical Ceramics, and Chang Lyu D.D.S. from Section Medical Materials Science & Technology, University Hospital Tübingen. We further acknowledge open access publishing funding by Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft and University of Tübingen.

Author Contributions

Sebastian Spintzyk and Tomofumi Sawada contributed to the conception, design, data acquisition, analysis, and interpretation stages of this experiment, and co-wrote the paper; Kikue Yamaguchi contributed to preparing the specimens, data acquisition, and analysis; Christine Schille and Ernst Schweizer performed and contributed to the shear bond strength tests and scanning electron microscopy, respectively; Masahiko Ozeki and Jürgen Geis-Gerstorfer contributed to critical manuscript review. All authors give final approval of this work.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Sailer, I.; Makarov, N.A.; Thoma, D.S.; Zwahlen, M.; Pjetursson, B.E. All-ceramic or metal-ceramic tooth-supported fixed dental prostheses (FDPs)? A systematic review of the survival and complication rates. Part I, Single crowns (SCs). Dent. Mater. 2015, 31, 603–623. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  2. Stober, T.; Bermejo, J.L.; Schwindling, F.S.; Schmitter, M. Clinical assessment of enamel wear caused by monolithic zirconia crowns. J. Oral. Rehabil. 2016, 43, 621–629. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  3. Kern, M. Bonding to oxide ceramics—Laboratory testing versus clinical outcome. Dent. Mater. 2015, 31, 8–14. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  4. Koenig, V.; Vanheusden, A.J.; Le Goff, S.O.; Mainjot, A.K. Clinical risk factors related to failures with zirconia-based restorations, an up to 9-year retrospective study. J. Dent. 2013, 41, 1164–1174. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  5. Fischer, J.; Grohmann, P.; Stawarczyk, B. Effect of zirconia surface treatments on the shear strength of zirconia/veneering ceramic composites. Dent. Mater. J. 2008, 27, 448–454. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  6. Miyazaki, T.; Nakamura, T.; Matsumura, H.; Ban, S.; Kobayashi, T. Current status of zirconia restoration. J. Prosthodont. Res. 2013, 57, 236–261. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  7. Komine, F.; Strub, J.; Matsumura, H. Bonding between layering materials and zirconia frameworks. Jpn. Dent. Sci. Rev. 2012, 48, 153–161. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Yoon, H.I.; Yeo, I.S.; Yi, Y.J.; Kim, S.H.; Lee, J.B.; Han, J.S. Effect of surface treatment and liner material on the adhesion between veneering ceramic and zirconia. J. Mech. Behav. Biomed. Mater. 2014, 40, 369–374. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  9. Kim, H.J.; Lim, H.P.; Park, Y.J.; Vang, M.S. Effect of zirconia surface treatments on the shear bond strength of veneering ceramic. J. Prosthet. Dent. 2011, 105, 315–322. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Nishigori, A.; Yoshida, T.; Bottino, M.C.; Platt, J.A. Influence of zirconia surface treatment on veneering porcelain shear bond strength after cyclic loading. J. Prosthet. Dent. 2014, 112, 1392–1398. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  11. Matani, J.D.; Kheur, M.; Jambhekar, S.S.; Bhargava, P.; Londhe, A. Evaluation of experimental coating to improve the zirconia-veneering ceramic bond strength. J. Prosthodont. 2014, 23, 626–633. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  12. Canullo, L.; Micarelli, C.; Bettazzoni, L.; Magnelli, A.; Baldissara, P. Shear bond strength of veneering porcelain to zirconia after argon plasma treatment. Int. J. Prosthodont. 2014, 27, 137–139. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  13. Ferrari, M.; Giovannetti, A.; Carrabba, M.; Bonadeo, G.; Rengo, C.; Monticelli, F.; Vichi, A. Fracture resistance of three porcelain-layered CAD/CAM zirconia frame designs. Dent. Mater. 2014, 30, 163–168. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  14. Adhesion Promoter for Promoting Adhesion between Oxide Ceramic and a Veneer Material, in Particular FOR Dental Purposes, Method for the Use Thereof and Kit for the Production and Application Thereof. Available online: https://www.google.com/patents/WO2011050786A3?cl=en&dq=Olaf+gluck&hl=ja&sa=X&ved=0CB0Q6AEwAGoVChMIir-y4cy_yAIVCzsUCh3_swW4, 2012 (accessed on 28 July 2016).
  15. Sawada, T.; Spintzyk, S.; Schille, C.; Zöldföldi, J.; Paterakis, A.; Schweizer, E.; Stephan, I.; Rupp, F.; Geis-Gerstorfer, J. Influence of pre-sintered zirconia surface conditioning on shear bond strength to resin cement. Materials 2016, 9, 518. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. International Organization for Standardization. Dentistry-Polymer-Based Crown and Bridge Materials; ISO 10477:2004; International Organization for Standardization: Geneva, Switzerland, 2004. [Google Scholar]
  17. Guess, P.C.; Kulis, A.; Witkowski, S.; Wolkewitz, M.; Zhang, Y.; Strub, J.R. Shear bond strengths between different zirconia cores and veneering ceramics and their susceptibility to thermocycling. Dent. Mater. 2008, 24, 1556–1567. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  18. Wong, J.D.; Kei Lung, C.Y.; Tsoi, J.K.; Matininna, J.P. Effects of a zirconate coupling agent incorporated into an experimental resin composite on its compressive strength and bonding to zirconia. J. Mech. Behav. Biomed. Mater. 2014, 29, 171–176. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  19. Benjamini, Y.; Hochberg, Y. Controlling the false discovery rate, a practical and powerful approach to multiple testing. J. R. Stat. Soc. Ser. B 1995, 57, 289–300. [Google Scholar]
  20. Choi, J.E.; Waddell, J.N.; Torr, B.; Swain, M.V. Pressed ceramics onto zirconia. Part 1, Comparison of crystalline phases present, adhesion to a zirconia system and flexural strength. Dent. Mater. 2011, 27, 1204–1212. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  21. Qian, H.; Cui, C.; Su, T.; Zhang, F.; Sun, J. Exploring the optimal pre-sintering temperature on compressive strength and anti-fatigue property of graded zirconia-based glass/zirconia structure. Dent. Mater. J. 2016, 35, 341–344. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  22. Zhang, Y.; Kim, J.W. Graded structures for damage resistant and aesthetic all-ceramic restorations. Dent. Mater. 2009, 25, 781–790. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  23. Li, K.C.; Waddell, J.N.; Prior, D.J.; Ting, S.; Girvan, L.; van Vuuren, L.J.; Swain, M.V. Effect of autoclave induced low-temperature degradation on the adhesion energy between yttria-stabilized zirconia veneered with porcelain. Dent. Mater. 2013, 29, e263–e270. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  24. Agustín-Panadero, R.; Román-Rodríguez, J.L.; Ferreiroa, A.; Solá-Ruíz, M.F.; Fons-Font, A. Zirconia in fixed prosthesis. A literature review. J. Clin. Exp. Dent. 2014, 6, 66–73. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  25. Özkurt, Z.; Kazazoglu, E.; Unal, A. In vitro evaluation of shear bond strength of veneering ceramics to zirconia. Dent. Mater. J. 2010, 29, 138–146. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  26. Su, N.; Yue, L.; Liao, Y.; Liu, W.; Zhang, H.; Li, X.; Wang, H.; Shen, J. The effect of various sandblasting conditions on surface changes of dental zirconia and shear bond strength between zirconia core and indirect composite resin. J. Adv. Prosthodont. 2015, 7, 214–223. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  27. He, M.; Zhang, Z.; Zheng, D.; Ding, N.; Liu, Y. Effect of sandblasting on surface roughness of zirconia-based ceramics and shear bond strength of veneering porcelain. Dent. Mater. J. 2014, 33, 778–785. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  28. Aboushelib, M.N.; de Jager, N.; Kleverlaan, C.J.; Feilzer, A.J. Microtensile bond strength of different components of core veneered all-ceramic restorations. Dent. Mater. 2005, 21, 984–991. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  29. Chintapalli, R.K.; Mestra Rodriguez, A.; Garcia Marro, F.; Anglada, M. Effect of sandblasting and residual stress on strength of zirconia for restorative dentistry applications. J. Mech. Behav. Biomed. Mater. 2014, 29, 126–137. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  30. Ramos, C.M.; Cesar, P.F.; Mondelli, R.F.L.; Tabata, A.S.; de Souza Santos, J.; Borges, A.F.S. Bond strength and raman analysis of the zirconia-feldspathic porcelain interface. J. Prosthet. Dent. 2014, 112, 886–894. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  31. Aboushelib, M.N.; Kleverlaan, C.J.; Feilzer, A.J. Microtensile bond strength of different components of core veneered all-ceramic restorations. Part II: Zirconia veneering ceramics. Dent. Mater. 2006, 22, 857–863. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  32. Vidotti, H.A.; Pereira, J.R.; Insaurralde, E.; de Almeida, A.L.; do Valle, A.L. Thermo and mechanical cycling and veneering method do not influence Y-TZP core/veneer interface bond strength. Dent. Mater. 2013, 41, 307–312. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  33. Blatz, M.B.; Bergler, M.; Ozer, F.; Holst, S.; Phark, J.H.; Chiche, G.J. Bond strength of different veneering ceramics to zirconia and their susceptibility to thermocycling. Am. J. Dent. 2010, 23, 213–216. [Google Scholar] [PubMed]
  34. Chevalier, J. What future for zirconia as a biomaterial? Biomaterials 2006, 27, 535–543. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  35. Koenig, V.; Wulfman, C.P.; Derbanne, M.A.; Dupont, N.M.; Le Goff, S.O.; Tang, M.-L.; Seidel, L.; Dewael, T.Y.; Vanheusden, A.J.; Mainjota, A.K. Aging of monolithic zirconia dental prostheses: Protocol for a 5-year prospective clinical study using ex vivo analyses. Contemp. Clin. Trials Commun. 2016, 4, 25–32. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Oh, G.J.; Yun, K.D.; Lee, K.M.; Lim, H.P.; Park, S.W. Sintering behavior and mechanical properties of zirconia compacts fabricated by uniaxial press forming. J. Adv. Prosthodont. 2010, 2, 81–87. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  37. Niu, X.; Rahbar, N.; Farias, S.; Soboyejo, W. Bio-inspired design of dental multilayers, experiments and model. J. Mech. Behav. Biomed. Mater. 2009, 2, 596–602. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  38. Kim, J.W.; Liu, L.; Zhang, Y. Improving the resistance to sliding contact damage of zirconia using elastic gradients. J. Biomed. Mater. Res. B Appl. Biomater. 2010, 94, 347–352. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  39. Al-Dohan, H.M.; Yaman, P.; Dennison, J.B.; Razzoog, M.E.; Lang, B.R. Shear strength of core-veneer interface in bi-layered ceramics. J. Prosthet. Dent. 2004, 91, 349–355. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  40. Nakamura, T.; Sugano, T.; Usami, H.; Wakabayashi, K.; Ohnishi, H.; Sekino, T.; Yatani, H. Shear bond strength of veneering porcelain to porous zirconia. Dent. Mater. J. 2014, 33, 220–225. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  41. Gain, A.K.; Song, H.Y.; Lee, B.T. Microstructure and mechanical properties of porous yttria stabilized zirconia ceramic using poly methyl methacrylate powder. Scr. Mater. 2006, 54, 2081–2085. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Materials 09 00765 g001 1024
Figure 1. Experimental groups in this study.
Figure 1. Experimental groups in this study.
Materials 09 00765 g001
Materials 09 00765 g002 1024
Figure 2. Procedure of porcelain layering: (a,b) a brass jig; (c) porcelain layering; and (d) the specimen after glazing.
Figure 2. Procedure of porcelain layering: (a,b) a brass jig; (c) porcelain layering; and (d) the specimen after glazing.
Materials 09 00765 g002
Materials 09 00765 g003 1024
Figure 3. Shear bond strength testing: (a) a metal holder with a special designed metal piston; (b) fixation of a specimen; and (c) during shear bond strength testing.
Figure 3. Shear bond strength testing: (a) a metal holder with a special designed metal piston; (b) fixation of a specimen; and (c) during shear bond strength testing.
Materials 09 00765 g003
Materials 09 00765 g004 1024
Figure 4. Cross-sectional scanning electron microscopy (SEM) micrograph of a conditioner-coated specimen (5000× magnification).
Figure 4. Cross-sectional scanning electron microscopy (SEM) micrograph of a conditioner-coated specimen (5000× magnification).
Materials 09 00765 g004
Materials 09 00765 g005 1024
Figure 5. Energy dispersive X-ray spectroscopy (EDX) analyses of conditioner-coated and uncoated specimen surfaces.
Figure 5. Energy dispersive X-ray spectroscopy (EDX) analyses of conditioner-coated and uncoated specimen surfaces.
Materials 09 00765 g005
Materials 09 00765 g006 1024
Figure 6. Microscope (10× magnification) of fractured specimen surfaces with different failure modes: (a) cohesive; (b) mixed; (c) adhesive failures in the uncoated group; (d) cohesive; (e) mixed; and (f) adhesive failures in the conditioner-coated group.
Figure 6. Microscope (10× magnification) of fractured specimen surfaces with different failure modes: (a) cohesive; (b) mixed; (c) adhesive failures in the uncoated group; (d) cohesive; (e) mixed; and (f) adhesive failures in the conditioner-coated group.
Materials 09 00765 g006
Table
Table 1. Zirconia sintering and porcelain firing schedules.
Table 1. Zirconia sintering and porcelain firing schedules.
ProcedureBasic Temperature (°C)Dry Time (min)Temperature Increase (°C/min)High Temperature (°C)Hold Time (min)
Y-TZP sintering20-81380120
Porcelain firing
1st/2nd wash-bake5006559301
1st dentin5006559101
2nd dentin5006559001
Glaze5004809001
Table
Table 2. Two-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) of shear bond strength.
Table 2. Two-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) of shear bond strength.
SourceDFSum of SquaresMean SquareFp
Conditioner application (A)10.03630.03630.00130.9714
Thermal cycling (B)164.892964.89292.32590.1360
(A) × (B)11.71891.71890.06160.8054
Error361004.404227.9001
Total391071.0523
Table
Table 3. Mean (standard deviation) shear bond strength value of each group in MPa.
Table 3. Mean (standard deviation) shear bond strength value of each group in MPa.
GroupShear Bond Strength
Uncoated23.7 (4.1) A
Conditioner-coated24.2 (5.2) A
Uncoated + Thermal cycling21.6 (5.9) A
Conditioner-coated + Thermal cycling21.2 (5.8) A
Results of statistical analysis are represented by upper case letters. Same uppercase letters mean that the groups are not significant different (p < 0.05).
Table
Table 4. Numbers of different failure modes of each group.
Table 4. Numbers of different failure modes of each group.
GroupCohesiveMixedAdhesivep
Uncoated316A,B
Conditioner-coated118A
Uncoated + Thermal cycling118A
Conditioner-coated + Thermal cycling460B
Results of statistical analysis are represented by upper case letters. Same uppercase letters mean that the groups are not significantly different (p < 0.05).

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Spintzyk, S.; Yamaguchi, K.; Sawada, T.; Schille, C.; Schweizer, E.; Ozeki, M.; Geis-Gerstorfer, J. Influence of the Conditioning Method for Pre-Sintered Zirconia on the Shear Bond Strength of Bilayered Porcelain/Zirconia. Materials 2016, 9, 765. https://doi.org/10.3390/ma9090765

AMA Style

Spintzyk S, Yamaguchi K, Sawada T, Schille C, Schweizer E, Ozeki M, Geis-Gerstorfer J. Influence of the Conditioning Method for Pre-Sintered Zirconia on the Shear Bond Strength of Bilayered Porcelain/Zirconia. Materials. 2016; 9(9):765. https://doi.org/10.3390/ma9090765

Chicago/Turabian Style

Spintzyk, Sebastian, Kikue Yamaguchi, Tomofumi Sawada, Christine Schille, Ernst Schweizer, Masahiko Ozeki, and Jürgen Geis-Gerstorfer. 2016. "Influence of the Conditioning Method for Pre-Sintered Zirconia on the Shear Bond Strength of Bilayered Porcelain/Zirconia" Materials 9, no. 9: 765. https://doi.org/10.3390/ma9090765

APA Style

Spintzyk, S., Yamaguchi, K., Sawada, T., Schille, C., Schweizer, E., Ozeki, M., & Geis-Gerstorfer, J. (2016). Influence of the Conditioning Method for Pre-Sintered Zirconia on the Shear Bond Strength of Bilayered Porcelain/Zirconia. Materials, 9(9), 765. https://doi.org/10.3390/ma9090765

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop