S-Space College of Dentistry/School of Dentistry (치과대학/치의학대학원) Dept. of Dentistry (치의학과) Journal Papers (저널논문_치의학과)
도재와 상아질의 표면 처리가 도재의 파절 강도에 미치는 영향
The effect of surface treatment on fracture strength of dental ceramics
- 이신원; 이선형; 양재호; 정헌영
- Issue Date
- 대한치과보철학회지 1999;37:658-671
- The major influencing factors on the strength of all-ceramic crowns are types of dental ceramics, fabrication techniques, methods of abutment preparation and cementation modes of all-ceramic restorations. Zinc phosphate cement and glass-ionomer cement were used as an early lot-ing media for all-ceramic crowns. Recently many studies have reported that resin cements have more advantages in increasing the fracture strength of restorations comparing with zincphosphate cement and glass-ionomer cement. The purpose of this study is to investigate the effect of etching, silane treatment, sandblasting and dentin bonding agents on fracture strengths of dental ceramics. 40 flat dentin specimens and 40 ceramic discs of 1.5mm thickness and 8mm diameter were fabricated, and divided into 4 groups according to surface treatments. Surface treatments before cementation were as follows Group I : (ceramic) : HF etching - silane treatment - application of bonding resin (dentin) : application of dentin bonding agent Group II : (ceramic) : sandblasting - application of bonding resin (dentin) : application of dentin bonding agent Group III : (ceramic) : application of bonding resin (dentin) : application of dentin bonding agent Group IV : (ceramic) : HF etching - silane treatment - application of bonding resin (dentin) : no dentin bonding procedure Dentin specimens and ceramic discs were cemented with dual cure resin cement, and went through thermocycling. Compressive stress es were loaded on the centers of ceramic discs with Instron test-ing machine, and fracture strengths resistance for catastrophic fracture were measured The results were as follows. 1. The group I showed the highest fracture resistance. The next was group II And group III, IV followed. 2. There was a significant difference in the mean value of fracture strengths between group I and group III (p<0.05), but no significant differences between group I and group II, and group II and group III (p>0.05). 3. There was a significant difference in the mean value of fracture strengths between group I and group IV (p<0.05).