Browse > Article

INFLUENCE OF INVESTMENT/CERAMIC INTERACTION LAYER ON INTERFACIAL TOUGHNESS OF BODY CERAMIC BONDED TO LITHIA-BASED CERAMIC  

Park, Ju-Mi (Department of Prosthodontics, School of Dentistry, Chonbuk National University)
Publication Information
The Journal of Korean Academy of Prosthodontics / v.44, no.6, 2006 , pp. 683-689 More about this Journal
Abstract
Statement of problem. Interfacial toughness is important in the mechanical property of layered dental ceramics such as core-veneered all-ceramic dental materials. The interfaces between adjacent layers must be strongly bonded to prevent delamination, however the weak interface makes delamination by the growth of lateral cracks along the interface. Purpose. The purpose of this study was to determine the effect of the reaction layer on the interfacial fracture toughness of the core/veneer structure according to the five different divesting. Materials and methods. Thirty five heat-pressed Lithia-based ceramic core bars (IPS Empress 2), $20mm{\times}3mm{\times}2mm$ were made following the five different surface divesting conditions. G1 was no dissolution or sandblasting of the interaction layer. G2 and G3 were dissolved layer with 0.2% HF in an ultrasonic unit for 15min and 30 min. G4 and G5 were dissolved layer for 15min and 30min and then same sandblasting for 60s each. We veneered bilayered ceramic bars, $20mm{\times}2.8mm{\times}3.8mm$(2mm core and 1.8mm veneer), according to the manufacturer's instruction. After polishing the specimens through $1{\mu}m$ alumina, we induced five cracks for each of five groups within the veneer close to interface under an applied indenter load of 19.6N with a Vickers microhardness indenter. Results. The results from Vickers hardness were the percentage of delamination G1:55%, G2:50%, G3:35%, G4:0% and G5:0%. SEM examination showed that the mean thickness of the reaction layer were G1 $93.5{\pm}20.6{\mu}m$, G2 $69.9{\pm}14.3{\mu}m$, G3 $59.2{\pm}20.2{\mu}m$, G4 $0.61{\pm}1.44{\mu}m$ G5 $0{\pm}0{\mu}m$. The mean interfacial delamination crack lengths were G1 $131{\pm}54.5{\mu}m$, G2 $85.2{\pm}51.3{\mu}m$, and G3 $94.9{\pm}81.8{\mu}m$. One-way ANOVA showed that there was no statistically significant difference in interfacial crack length among G1, G2 and G3(p> 0.05). Conclusion. The investment reaction layer played important role at the interfacial toughness of body ceramic bonded to Lithia-based ceramic.
Keywords
Interfacial fracture toughness; Delamination; Bilayered ceramic; Reaction layer; Investment;
Citations & Related Records
연도 인용수 순위
  • Reference
1 Ponton CB, Rawlings RD. Vickers Indentation Fracture Toughness Test, Part 2: Application and critical evaluation of standardized indentation toughness equations. Mat Sci Technol 1989;5:961-76   DOI
2 Seghi RR, Denry IR, Rosenstiel SF. Relative fracture toughness and hardness of new dental ceramics. J Prosthet Dent 1995;74:145-50   DOI   ScienceOn
3 Wakabayashi N, Anusavice KJ. Crack Initiation Modes in Bilayered Alumina/ Porcelain Disks as a Function of Corel Veneer Thickness Ratio and Supporting Substrate Stiffness. J Dent Res 2000;79: 1398-404   DOI   ScienceOn
4 Rossington C, Evans AG, Marshall DB, KhuriYakub BT. Measurements of adherence of residually stressed thin films by indentation, II: Experiments with ZnO/Si. J Appl Phys 1984;56:15
5 Anstis GR, Chantikul P, Lawn BR, Marshall DB. A Critical Evaluation of indentation Technique for Measuring Fracture Toughness: I, Direct Crack measurements. J Am Ceram Soc 1981;64:533-8   DOI
6 Marshall DB, Evans AG. Measurement of adherence of residually stressed thin films by indenta-tion, I: Mechanics of interface delamination. J Appl Phys 1984;56:15
7 Thomson GA. Influence of relative layer height and testing method on the failure mode and origin in a bilayered dental ceramic composite. Dent Mater 2000;16:235-43   DOI   ScienceOn
8 Wuttiphan S, Lawn BR, Padture NP. Crack Suppression in strongly Bonded Homogeneous/ Heterogeneous Laminates: A Study on Glass/GlassCeramic Bilayers. J Am Ceram Soc 1996;79:634-40   DOI
9 Anusavice KJ, Dehoff PH, Hojjatie B, Gray A Influence of Tempering and Contraction Mismatch on Crack development in Ceramic Surface. J Dent Res 1989;68:1182-7   DOI   ScienceOn
10 Ponton CB, Rawlings RD. Vickers Indentation Fracture Toughness Test, Part 1: Review of literature and formulation of standised indentation toughness equations. Mat Sci Technol 1989;5:865-72   DOI
11 Morena R, Lockwood PE, Fairhurst CW. Fracture toughness of commercial dental porcelains. Dent Mater 1986;2:58-62   DOI   ScienceOn
12 Kelly JR, Tesk JA Sorensen JA. Failure of All-eerarnic Fixed Partial Dentures in vitro and in vivo: Analysis and Modeling. J Dent Res 1995;74:1253-8   DOI   ScienceOn
13 Fischer H, Marx R. Fracture toughness of dental ce-ramics: comparison of bending and indentation method. Dent Mater 2000;18:12-9   DOI   ScienceOn