Apparent Interfacial Fracture Toughness of Resin/Ceramic Systems
A. Della Bona1,*,
K.J. Anusavice2, and
J.J. Mecholsky, Jr.3
1 School of Dentistry, The University of Passo Fundo, PO Box 611, Passo Fundo, RS, 99001-970, Brazil;
2 Department of Dental Biomaterials, University of Florida, Gainesville, USA; and
3 Department of Materials Science and Engineering, University of Florida, Gainesville, USA
View larger version (81K):
[in a new window]
|
Figure 1. Optical micrographs of Vickers indentation at the interface of (A) HF-treated E1 ceramic bonded to the adhesive resin (AR) and resin composite (RC), and (B) HF-treated E2 ceramic bonded to AR-RC. The adhesive resin (AR) layer varied (23-82 µm) in thickness (200x). (C) Schematic illustration of a bar specimen fixed to the flat ‘grips’ of the universal testing machine and loaded to failure in tension; (D) close-up view of the indented adhesion zone.
|
|
View larger version (169K):
[in a new window]
|
Figure 2. Representative SEM micrographs of fracture surfaces. (A) Semi-circular flaw produced by indentation is the crack origin (white box); the adhesive resin island in the middle of fracture surface has some fracture markings and represents a failure mode 2 (x80). (B) Enlargement of white box area of (A) showing the size of the crack semi-minor axis (a = 76.3 µm) (x300). (C) SEM image and x-ray elemental maps (lower right) of fracture surface representing fracture mode 5. The label at the top of x-ray maps indicates the elements and their intensity.
|
|
Copyright © 2006 Institutional Access Guidelines
