대한치과보철학회지 (The Journal of Korean Academy of Prosthodontics)

  • 제50권4호
  • /
  • Pages.235-242
  • /
  • 2012
  • /
  • 0301-2875(pISSN)
  • /
  • 2005-3789(eISSN)
대한치과보철학회 (The Korean Academy of Prosthodonitics)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

지르코니아, 유리침투알루미나 및 PFM 전부관 시스템의 파절 경향에 관한 비교연구

A comparative study on the fracture behavior of zironia, glass infiltrated alumina and PFM full crown system

  • 이상혁 (서울대학교 치과대학 생체재료과학교실) ;
  • 안진수 (서울대학교 치과대학 생체재료과학교실) ;
  • 김명호 (메덴트솔루션) ;
  • 임범순 (서울대학교 치과대학 생체재료과학교실)
  • Lee, Sang-Hyeok (Department of Dental Biomaterials Science, College of Dentistry, Seoul Nation University) ;
  • Ahn, Jin-Soo (Department of Dental Biomaterials Science, College of Dentistry, Seoul Nation University) ;
  • Kim, Myung-Ho (MedentSolution) ;
  • Lim, Bum-Soon (Department of Dental Biomaterials Science, College of Dentistry, Seoul Nation University)
  • 투고 : 2012.05.03
  • 심사 : 2012.08.22
  • 발행 : 2012.10.31
PDF 다운로드
⟨ 이전 논문 다음 논문 ⟩

초록

연구 목적: 본 연구는 지르코니아, 유리침투알루미나 및 금속도재소부용치관의 파절강도를 비교하고자 하였다. 연구 재료 및 방법: 지르코니아, 유리침투알루미나 및 금속도재소부용합금으로 각각 15개의 치관을 제작한 후, 제작된 치관을 장축에 $30^{\circ}$ 경사지게 제작된 지그에 장착하여 만능시험기로 파절강도를 측정하였으며, 전단결합강도 시험을 위하여 지르코니아, 유리침투알루미나 및 금속도재소부용합금을 $5.5({\phi}){\times}2.5mm$ 크기로 제작하고 포세린 분말을 $3.5({\phi}){\times}2.5mm$ 크기로 축성한 후 제조사의 설명서에 따라 전기로(Ceramco 7, Dentsply, USA)에서 소결하여 총10개의 시편을 제작하였다. 결과: 전부관 형태로 제작한 시편의 파절강도는 금속-도재 시스템이 $569.1{\pm}61.8N$, 알루미나-도재 시스템이 $551.0{\pm}76.5N$ 및 지르코니아-도재 시스템이 $588.3{\pm}49.6N$으로 측정되었으며, 각 실험군간 유의한 차이는 없었다(P>.05). 전단결합강도는 금속-도재 시스템이 $38.9{\pm}5.0MPa$, 알루미나-도재 시스템이 $39.4{\pm}5.1MPa$, 지르코니아-도재 시스템이 $25.5{\pm}5.6MPa$로 지르코니아-도재 시스템이 다른 두 시스템 보다 유의하게 낮은 값을 보였다(P<.05). 금속-도재 시스템, 알루미나-도재 시스템 및 지르코니아-도재 시스템의 각 결합계면을 SEM/EDS로 분석한 결과 각 시스템에서 상이한 결합 양상이 관찰되었다. 결론: 본 연구 결과 지르코니아-도재 시스템의 파절강도가 제일 높았으며, 금속-도재 시스템, 알루미나-도재 시스템 순서로 나타났으며, 전단결합강도는 알루미나-도재 시스템이 제일 높았고 금속-도재 시스템, 지르코니아-도재 시스템 순서으로 나타났다.

Purpose: The purpose of this study was to compare the fracture behavior of Zironia, glass infiltrated Alumina and PFM full crown system. Materials and methods: Fifteen crowns for each of 3 experimental groups (Zironia, glass infiltrated Alumina and PFM full crown) were made by the conventional method. The crowns mounted on the testing jig were inclined in 30 degrees to the long axis of the tooth and the universal testing machine was used to measure the fracture strength. Results: 1. The mean fracture strengths were $588.3{\pm}49.6MPa$ for zirconia system, $569.1{\pm}61.8MPa$ for PFM system and $551.0{\pm}76.5MPa$ for glass-infiltrated alumina system (P>.05). 2. The mean shear bond strengths were $25.5{\pm}5.6MPa$ for zirconia system, $38.9{\pm}5.0MPa$ for Ni-Cr alloy system and $39.4{\pm}5.1MPa$ for glass-infiltrated alumina system. 3. The chemical bonding was observed at interfaces between PFM or glass-infiltrated alumina and veneering porcelain, however, no chemical bonding was observed at interface between zirconia and veneering porcelain. Conclusion: With the study, the fracture strengths of PFM crown system had a higher fracture strength than conventional zirconia system crown and glass-infiltrated alumina crowns. and than the shear bond strengths glass-infiltrated alumina system had a higher shear bond strength than conventional PFM system and zirconia system.

키워드

참고문헌

  1. Raigrodski AJ. Contemporary materials and technologies for allceramic fixed partial dentures: a review of the literature. J Prosthet Dent 2004;92:557-62. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.prosdent.2004.09.015
  2. Sproull RC. Color matching in dentistry. Part I.The three-dimensional nature of color. J. Prosthet Dent 1973;29:416-26. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0022-3913(73)80019-8
  3. Dickinson AJ, Moore BK, Harris RK, Dykema RW. A comparative study of the strength of aluminous porcelain and all-ceramic crowns. J Prosthet Dent 1989;61:297-304. https://doi.org/10.1016/0022-3913(89)90132-7
  4. Levy H. Daniel X. : Working with the In-Ceram porcelain system. Prothese Dentaire 1990;44-45:1-11.
  5. Ludwing K. Study on the ultimate strength of all-ceramic crowns. Dental-labor No.5/91:647-51.
  6. Miller A, Long J, Miller B, Cole J. Comparison of the fracture strengths of ceramometal crowns versus several all-ceramic crowns. J Prosthet Dent 1992;68:38-41. https://doi.org/10.1016/0022-3913(92)90281-E
  7. Rosenstiel SF, Porter SS. Apparent fracture toughness of all-ceramic crown systems. J Prosthet Dent 1989;62:529-32. https://doi.org/10.1016/0022-3913(89)90073-5
  8. Seghi RR, Daher T, Caputo A. Relative flexural strength of dental restorative ceramics. Dent Mater 1990;6:181-4. https://doi.org/10.1016/0109-5641(90)90026-B
  9. Raigrodski AJ, Chiche GJ, Potiket N, Hochstedler JL, Mohamed SE, Billiot S, Mercante DE. The efficacy of posterior three-unit zirconium-oxide-based ceramic fixed partial dental prostheses: a prospective clinical pilot study. J Prosthet Dent 2006;96:237-44. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.prosdent.2006.08.010
  10. Sadoun M. All ceramic bridges with the slip casting technique. Presented at the 7th International Symposium on Ceramics. Paris, 1988.
  11. Al-Makramani BM, Razak AA, Abu-Hassan MI. Biaxial flexural strength of Turkom-Cera core compared to two other all-ceramic systems. J Appl Oral Sci 2010;18:607-12. https://doi.org/10.1590/S1678-77572010000600012
  12. AL-Makramani BM, Razak AA, Abu-Hassan MI. Comparison of the load at fracture of Turkom-Cera to Procera AllCeram and In-Ceram all-ceramic restorations. J Prosthodont 2009;18: 484-8. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1532-849X.2009.00467.x
  13. ISO 6872 Dental Ceramic. 2008.
  14. Anusavice KJ, Carroll JE. Effect of incompatibility stress on the fit of metal-ceramic crowns. J Dent Res 1987;66:1341-5. https://doi.org/10.1177/00220345870660081101
  15. Warpeha WS Jr, Goodkind RJ. Design and technique variables affecting fracture resistance of metal-ceramic restorations. J Prosthet Dent 1976;35:291-8. https://doi.org/10.1016/0022-3913(76)90253-5
  16. Lee IS. Fracture strength of zirconia ceramic crowns according to tooth position. J Korean Acad Prosthodont 2010;48:94-100. https://doi.org/10.4047/jkap.2010.48.2.94
  17. Park HS. A comparative study on the fracture strength of two different CAD/CAM zirconia ceramic system. PhD Thesis. In Korea; Seoul National University, College of Dentistry, 2011.
  18. Jeong HC. Fracture strength of zirconia monolithic crowns. J Korean Acad Prosthodont 2006;44:157-64.
  19. Hwang JW, Yang JH, Lee SH, Chung HY. A study on fracture strength of conventional and copy-milled In-Ceram crowns. J Korean Acad Prosthodont 1997;35:417-30.
  20. Lee MH, Jeon YC. A study on fracture strength and color by the design if metal coping in ceramo metal crown. J Korean Acad Prosthodont 1992;30:103-24.
  21. Dundar M, Ozcan M, Gokce B, Comlekoglu E, Leite F, Valandro LF. Comparison of two bond strength testing methodologies for bilayered all-ceramics. Dent Mater 2007;23:630-6. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dental.2006.05.004
  22. Aboushelib MN, de Jager N, Kleverlaan CJ, Feilzer AJ. Microtensile bond strength of different components of core veneered all-ceramic restorations. Dent Mater 2005;21:984-91. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dental.2005.03.013
  23. Aboushelib MN, Kleverlaan CJ, Feilzer AJ. Microtensile bond strength of different components of core veneered all-ceramic restorations. Part II: Zirconia veneering ceramics. Dent Mater 2006;22:857-63. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dental.2005.11.014
  24. Aboushelib MN, Kleverlaan CJ, Feilzer AJ. Microtensile bond strength of different components of core veneered all-ceramic restorations. Part 3: double veneer technique. J Prosthodont 2008;17:9-13.
  25. Vickery RC, Badinelli LA. Nature of attachment forces in porcelain-gold systems. J Dent Res 1968;47:683-9. https://doi.org/10.1177/00220345680470050301
  26. Knap FJ, Ryge G. Study of bond strength of dental porcelain fused to metal. J Dent Res 1966;45:1047-51. https://doi.org/10.1177/00220345660450040501
  27. Choi BK, Han JS, Yang JH, Lee JB, Kim SH. Shear bond strength of veneering porcelain to zirconia and metal cores. J Adv Prosthodont 2009;1:129-35. https://doi.org/10.4047/jap.2009.1.3.129