| HOME | HELP | FEEDBACK | SUBSCRIPTIONS | ARCHIVE | SEARCH | TABLE OF CONTENTS |
|
|
|
|||||||
|
|||||||||
RESEARCH REPORT |
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
* corresponding author, dbona{at}upf.br
 |
ABSTRACT |
|---|
 TOP ABSTRACT INTRODUCTIONMATERIALS & METHODSRESULTSDISCUSSIONREFERENCES |
|---|
) and the critical crack size (c) to calculate KA (KA = Yc1/2) (Y = 1.65). ANOVA and Weibull analyses were used for statistical analyses. Mean KA (MPa·m1/2) values were: (E1HF) 0.26 ± 0.06; (E1S) 0.23 ± 0.06; (E1HFS) 0.30 ± 0.06; (E2HF) 0.31 ± 0.06; (E2S) 0.13 ± 0.05; and (E2HFS) 0.41 ± 0.07. All fractures originated from indentation sites. Estimation of interfacial toughness was feasible by fracture mechanics and fractography. The KA for the systems tested was affected by the ceramic microstructure and surface treatment.
KEY WORDS: structural reliability • fracture • fractography • fracture toughness • Weibull modulus
|
INTRODUCTION |
|---|
|
TOPABSTRACTINTRODUCTIONMATERIALS & METHODSRESULTSDISCUSSIONREFERENCES |
|---|
The microtensile test was developed to eliminate non-uniform stress distribution at the adhesive interface and to minimize the influence of interfacial defects (Sano et al., 1994). This test has been used to measure the bond strength of composite to dental tissues (Sano et al., 1994; Pashley et al., 1995; Schreiner et al., 1998; Shono et al., 1999; Carvalho et al., 2003) and to ceramics (Della Bona et al., 2000; El Zohairy et al., 2003).
The strength values determined from the microtensile test are considered a reliable indicator of the composite-ceramic bond quality, since fractures occur within the adhesion zone. In addition, the microtensile test produces variable fracture-surface morphology and fracture origins for the same adhesive interfaces within the adhesion zone. Therefore, a careful interpretation of the failure mode is required to prevent inappropriate conclusions about the utility of the microtensile test and the adhesion zone phenomena. Fracture-surface characterization combined with analyses of fracture mechanics parameters is of great importance to our ability to understand and predict bonded interface reliability (Chen and Mecholsky, 1993; Della Bona et al., 2003b).
One method for assessing bond resistance to fracture is an estimation of the apparent interfacial fracture toughness (KA) of the adhesion zone by the promotion of crack initiation within the bonded interface. The initial critical flaw can be identified by fractography, and KA can be assessed according to fracture mechanics principles. KA is expected to be independent of crack size, whereas bond strength is dependent on crack size (Chen and Mecholsky, 1993). Thus, KA reflects the ability of a material to resist unstable crack propagation at the interface (Mecholsky and Barker, 1984; Tam and Pillar, 1993).
The objective of this study was to use fracture mechanics and fractography to determine the KA of the adhesion zone of resin/ceramic systems, testing the hypothesis that KA is affected by ceramic microstructure and ceramic surface treatments.
|
MATERIALS & METHODS |
|---|
|
TOPABSTRACTINTRODUCTIONMATERIALS & METHODSRESULTSDISCUSSIONREFERENCES |
|---|
The methods for investigating the microstructure, composition, mechanical and physical properties, and the HF-treated ceramic topography of E1 and E2 ceramics have been fully described in previous studies (Della Bona et al., 2000, 2003a,Della Bona et al., b, 2004a,Della Bona et al., b).
The ceramic blocks were randomly divided into 3 groups for each ceramic (n = 5) and treated as follows:
E1HF: 9.5% hydrofluoric acid (HF) (Ultradent Products Inc., South Jordan, UT, USA) applied for 1 min on E1 ceramic, rinsed for 30 s, and dried with oil-free air.
E1S: silane coating (S) (Ultradent Products Inc., South Jordan, UT, USA) applied to E1, allowed to evaporate for 5 min, and air-dried.
E1HFS: HF applied for 1 min, rinsed for 30 s, air-dried, followed by application of S.
E2HF: HF applied as for E1HF on E2 ceramic.
E2S: S coating applied as for E1S on E2 ceramic.
E2HFS: HF and S applied as for E1HFS on E2 ceramic.
Adhesive (Scotchbond Multi-Purpose Plus, 3M Dental Products, St. Paul, MN, USA) and 2-mm-thick layers of a resin composite (Z100, 3M Dental Products, St. Paul, MN, USA) were applied to the ceramic-treated surfaces and light-cured for 10 s and 40 s, respectively, with the use of a Coltene Coltolux-4 unit (Coltene/Whaledent Inc., Mahwah, NJ, USA; light intensity = 430 mW/cm2).
The ceramic-adhesive-composite sets were cut by means of a slow-speed diamond wheel saw (model 650, South Bay Technology Inc., San Clemente, CA, USA), which produced bar specimens with a mean bonding area of 1 ± 0.01 mm2 (Della Bona et al., 2000). The bar specimens were examined for flaws by optical microscopy (microscope model SCW30L, Fisher Scientific, Bangkok, Thailand). The exclusion criteria included the presence of any obvious flaw or specimen debonding before testing. Thirty specimens per group were selected at random and stored in air at 23°C and 50% humidity for 7 days before indentation.
We performed a preliminary study to determine the indentation load (P). A microhardness tester (Model MO Tukon Microhardness Tester, Wilson Instruments Inc., Binghamton, NY, USA) with a Vickers diamond indenter was used to indent the center of the ceramic/resin interface of additional specimens. Indentation loads ranged from 4.9 N to 29.4 N (dwell time, 20 s). An indentation load of 9.8 N was selected based on a constant value of P/c3/2;o plotted against P, where co is the dimension of the radial/median crack (Anstis et al., 1981). In addition, some interfaces (E1S and E2S) consistently debonded during the indentation procedure, when loads greater than 9.8 N were used.
After indentation, the crack was allowed to grow and stabilize for 24 h in air at 23°C and 50% humidity before being tested. Each specimen was loaded to failure in tension (Fig. 1
) at a crosshead speed of 0.5 mm/min, in an Instron testing machine (Model 1125, Instron Corp., Canton, MA, USA) (Della Bona et al., 2000). The bonded area of each specimen was measured immediately after testing (Digimatic caliper, Mitutoyo Co., Kawasaki, Japan) and used for the calculation of bond strength. We performed a linear regression analysis to determine if the size of cross-sectional area affected the calculated bond strength.
|
) and KA data were analyzed statistically by one-way ANOVA and Tukey’s multiple range test (
= 0.05). We also performed Weibull analysis to evaluate the structural integrity of the adhesion zone (Della Bona et al., 2003b).
We prepared fracture surfaces for SEM examination to determine the mode of failure, which was confirmed by x-ray elemental maps (EDAX). We used quantitative fracture surface analysis (fractography) to determine the critical crack size (c) and to calculate KA (KA = Yc1/2), where Y is a geometry factor (Y = 1.65) and c = (ab) 1/2, ‘a’ is the semi-minor axis (Fig. 2B), and ‘b’ is the semi-major axis of the crack. The mode of failure was determined according to a previous study (Della Bona et al., 2003b).
|
|
RESULTS |
|---|
|
TOPABSTRACTINTRODUCTIONMATERIALS & METHODSRESULTSDISCUSSIONREFERENCES |
|---|
).
|
).
Ceramics treated with S only showed the lowest m value for both E1 and E2 ceramics. The E1HFS group revealed the greatest m value of all tested groups. For each surface treatment, the mean value was greater for E2 than for E1, except for the groups treated with S only that showed the lowest mean value and the greatest coefficient of variation (Table 2). In addition, some specimens treated with S only debonded during the preparation procedure. Therefore, they met the exclusion criteria and were excluded from the random selection process.
|
0.0001). There was no difference in the ranking of the mean and KA values, which varied with the ceramic microstructure and surface treatment. Both and KA mean values increased when HF and S were used (Table 2).
All fractures originated from the indentation semicircular crack (Fig. 2) that reached the ceramic-adhesive interface (E1-AR in Fig. 1A and E2-AR in Fig. 1B). Most of the bonded E2 ceramic specimens showed 2 microcracks, one at each adhesive interface. The purely adhesive failure (mode 1) and failure from an internal flaw (mode 3) were not found in this study. We observed only failures that were initiated at the ceramic-adhesive interface and propagated through the adhesive (mode 4), and subsequently either reached the adhesive-composite interface (mode 5) or returned to the ceramic-adhesive interface (mode 2). Modes 4 and 5 were the predominant (60%) types of failure. Failure mode 2 was revealed only when S was applied (APPENDIX) (Della Bona et al., 2003b).
|
DISCUSSION |
|---|
|
TOPABSTRACTINTRODUCTIONMATERIALS & METHODSRESULTSDISCUSSIONREFERENCES |
|---|
(E/H)1/8;by an averaged quantity = 0.59 [(E/H)1/8] = 0.88 would add no more than 10% to the error in KC evaluation for a material whose elastic/plastic parameters are unknown (Chantikul et al., 1981). In this study, the calibration constants for all materials were in agreement with the above values: E1 = 0.83; E2 = 0.83; AR = 0.86; and RC = 0.85. Previous investigators have discussed the generation and limitations of the indentation technique (Hagan and Swain, 1978; Kruzic and Ritchie, 2003), and a brief discussion is included in the APPENDIX.
To test the integrity of bonded interfaces, one can subject a bonded assembly to a variety of loading conditions to control the crack path along the interface or within the interfacial region. Analyses of bond tests have revealed several problems associated with most common test arrangements, suggesting a lack of reliability of such measurements in assessing the adhesive behavior of bonded dental materials (Anusavice et al., 1980; van Noort et al., 1989; Della Bona and van Noort, 1995; DeHoff et al., 1995; Versluis et al., 1997; Sudsangiam and van Noort, 1999).
The non-trimming method we used in this study to obtain specimens for the microtensile test produces less stress in the adhesion zone (Pashley et al., 1999). Since no specimen finishing is necessary, this method also avoids areas of stress concentration produced by polishing materials that differ in hardness and particle size (Della Bona et al., 2000, 2003b).
Effective etching of the ceramic surface is considered an essential step for the clinical success of indirect ceramic-bonded restorations and direct-repaired ceramic prostheses. Structural and surface analyses of etched ceramics have showed that different etching patterns are created according to the ceramic microstructure and composition (Della Bona et al., 2003b), and the concentration, application time, and type of etchant (al Edris et al., 1990; Kupiec et al., 1996; Chen et al., 1998; Della Bona and van Noort, 1998; Jardel et al., 1999; Della Bona et al., 2000).
The results of this study show that there is a synergistic effect of HF and S on the and KA for the systems studied. Yet, HF-treated ceramics produced greater mean and KA values than did S-treated ceramics. Since the silica(Si)-silane(S)-methyl methacrylate (MMA) combination produces the chemical bond between silica-based ceramics and resins, the lowest mean and KA values of E2S may be explained by the reduced amount of silica in E2, compared with E1 (Della Bona et al., 2004b). Therefore, and KA are affected by the ceramic microstructure and ceramic surface treatments, confirming the study hypothesis.
The evaluation of the structural integrity of the adhesion zone by Weibull analysis revealed the highest Weibull modulus for E1HFS specimens, which is in agreement with the results of previous research (Della Bona et al., 2000). The strength obtained by the microtensile test can be a reliable indicator of the composite-ceramic bond quality, if all fractures occurred within the adhesion zone. In addition, the microtensile test produced variable fracture surface morphology for the same adhesive interfaces within the adhesion zone, which included failure modes 2, 4, and 5.
Compared with optical microscopy observations, a thorough SEM examination of the fracture surfaces and confirmation of composition through the use of x-ray elemental map analysis will ensure a more consistent and complete description of the fracture process and the modes of failure.
An appropriate way to assess the interfacial bond is to analyze the energy per unit crack surface area, GI, that is required for a crack to advance in the bond plane. Toughness is related to the critical strain energy release rate (GIC) and is a measure of the resistance of the bond to fracture, since GIC represents the relative energy required to create new surfaces.
A positive relationship was found between the mean values of and KA, which followed the ranking for both ceramics (E1 and E2), i.e., HF+S-treated > HF-treated > S-treated ceramic surfaces.
The observation of microcracks at both adhesive interfaces for the bonded E2 ceramic specimens may be explained by the greater difference in E and H between the resin components of the adhesion zone and the E2 or E1 ceramic components. The E and H differences between the adhesive and both the composite and the ceramics used in this study result in different residual stresses at the interfaces. In both systems, the strongest interface bond occurred at the adhesive-composite interface. Thus, we expect all failures to occur at the weaker adhesive-ceramic interface, agreeing with previous results from non-indented fractured resin-ceramic systems (Della Bona et al., 2000, 2003b). Therefore, the results suggest that the interfacial crack size, and consequently the KA value, is associated with the E/H ratio of the substrates.
Since all fractures occurring within the adhesion zone originated from the Vickers indentation, this study suggests that the microtensile test may be preferable to conventional shear or flexural tests as an indicator of composite-ceramic bond quality. A thorough SEM examination of the fracture surfaces following the principles of fractography and confirmation of surface composition through the use of x-ray elemental map analysis produce a more consistent and complete description of the fracture process and the modes of failure. These analyses avoid simplistic interpretations, such as the ‘mixed mode of failure’, that often follows ‘adhesive and/or cohesive’ observations. Thus, the quality of the bond should not be assessed based on bond strength data alone. Yet, estimation of interfacial toughness is possible with fracture mechanics and appropriate fractographic analyses that should reduce the risk for data misinterpretation and provide important information leading to predictions of clinical performance limits, which is the ultimate test of any adhesive system. Future studies should focus on GIC and apply different methods to test the interfacial fracture toughness, validating this procedure.
|
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS |
|---|
|
FOOTNOTES |
|---|
Received February 24, 2006; Last revision May 26, 2006; Accepted July 6, 2006
|
REFERENCES |
|---|
|
TOPABSTRACTINTRODUCTIONMATERIALS & METHODSRESULTSDISCUSSIONREFERENCES |
|---|
Anstis GR, Chantikul P, Lawn BR, Marshall DB (1981). A critical evaluation of indentation techniques for measuring fracture toughness: I, direct crack measurements. J Am Ceram Soc 64:533–538.
Anusavice KJ, Dehoff PH, Fairhurst CW (1980). Comparative evaluation of ceramic-metal bond tests using finite element stress analysis. J Dent Res 59:608–613.
Carvalho RM, Mendonca JS, Santiago SL, Silveira RR, Garcia FC, Tay FR, et al.(2003). Effects of HEMA/solvent combinations on bond strength to dentin. J Dent Res 82:597–601.
Chadwick RG, Mason AG, Sharp W (1998). Attempted evaluation of three porcelain repair systems-what are we really testing? J Oral Rehabil 25:610–615.[ISI][Medline]
Chantikul P, Anstis GR, Lawn BR, Marshall DB (1981). A critical evaluation of indentation techniques for measuring fracture toughness: II, strength method. J Am Ceram Soc 64:539–543.
Chen JH, Matsumura H, Atsuta M (1998). Effect of etchant, etching period, and silane priming on bond strength to porcelain of composite resin. Oper Dent 23:250–257.[ISI][Medline]
Chen Z, Mecholsky JJ Jr (1993). Control of strength and toughness of ceramic/metal laminates using interface design. J Mater Res 8:2362–2369.
DeHoff PH, Anusavice KJ, Wang Z (1995). Three-dimensional finite element analysis of the shear bond test. Dent Mater 11:126–131.[ISI][Medline]
Della Bona A, van Noort R (1995). Shear vs. tensile bond strength of resin composite bonded to ceramic. J Dent Res 74:1591–1596.
Della Bona A, van Noort R (1998). Ceramic surface preparations for resin bonding. Am J Dent 11:276–280.[ISI][Medline]
Della Bona A, Anusavice KJ, Shen C (2000). Microtensile strength of composite bonded to hot-pressed ceramics. J Adhes Dent 2:305–313.[Medline]
Della Bona A, Anusavice KJ, DeHoff PH (2003a). Weibull analysis and flexural strength of hot-pressed core and veneered ceramic structures. Dent Mater 19:662–669.[ISI][Medline]
Della Bona A, Anusavice KJ, Mecholsky JJ Jr (2003b). Failure analysis of resin composite bonded to ceramic. Dent Mater 19:693–700.[ISI][Medline]
Della Bona A, Shen C, Anusavice KJ (2004a). Work of adhesion of resin on treated lithia disilicate-based ceramic. Dent Mater 20:338–344.[ISI][Medline]
Della Bona A, Mecholsky JJ Jr, Anusavice KJ (2004b). Fracture behavior of lithia disilicate- and leucite-based ceramics. Dent Mater 20:956–962.[ISI][Medline]
El Zohairy AA, De Gee AJ, Mohsen MM, Feilzer AJ (2003). Microtensile bond strength testing of luting cements to prefabricated CAD/CAM ceramic and composite blocks. Dent Mater 19:575–583.[ISI][Medline]
Hagan JT, Swain MV (1978). The origin of median and lateral cracks around plastic indents in brittle materials. J Phys D: Appl Phys 11:2091–2102.
Jardel V, Degrange M, Picard B, Derrien G (1999). Correlation of topography to bond strength of etched ceramic. Int J Prosthodont 12:59–64.[ISI][Medline]
Kruzic JJ, Ritchie RO (2003). Determining the toughness of ceramics from Vickers indentations using the crack-opening displacements: an experimental study. J Am Ceram Soc 86:1433–1436.
Kupiec KA, Wuertz KM, Barkmeier WW, Wilwerding TM (1996). Evaluation of porcelain surface treatments and agents for composite-to-porcelain repair. J Prosthet Dent 76:119–124.[ISI][Medline]
Mecholsky JJ Jr, Barker LM (1984). A chevron-notched specimen for fracture toughness measurements of ceramic-metal interfaces. ASTM STP 855:324–336.
Pashley DH, Sano H, Ciucchi B, Yoshiyama M, Carvalho RM (1995). Adhesion testing of dentin bonding agents: a review. Dent Mater 11:117–125.[ISI][Medline]
Pashley DH, Carvalho RM, Sano H, Nakajima M, Yoshiyama M, Shono Y, et al. (1999). The microtensile bond test: a review. J Adhes Dent 1:299–309.[Medline]
Sano H, Shono T, Sonoda H, Takatsu T, Ciucchi B, Carvalho R, et al. (1994). Relationship between surface area for adhesion and tensile bond strength—evaluation of a micro-tensile bond test. Dent Mater 10:236–240.[ISI][Medline]
Schreiner RF, Chappell RP, Glaros AG, Eick JD (1998). Microtensile testing of dentin adhesives. Dent Mater 14:194–201.[ISI][Medline]
Shono Y, Ogawa T, Terashita M, Carvalho RM, Pashley EL, Pashley DH (1999). Regional measurement of resin-dentin bonding as an array. J Dent Res 78:699–705.
Sudsangiam S, van Noort R (1999). Do dentin bond strength tests serve a useful purpose? J Adhes Dent 1:57–67.[Medline]
Tam LE, Pilliar RM (1993). Fracture toughness of dentin/resin-composite adhesive interfaces. J Dent Res 72:953–959.
Van Noort R, Noroozi S, Howard IC, Cardew G (1989). A critique of bond strength measurements. J Dent 17:61–67.[ISI][Medline]
Versluis A, Tantbirojn D, Douglas WH (1997). Why do shear bond tests pull out dentin? J Dent Res 76:1298–1307.
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| HOME | HELP | FEEDBACK | SUBSCRIPTIONS | ARCHIVE | SEARCH | TABLE OF CONTENTS |
| IADR Journals | Advances in Dental Research ® |
| Journal of Dental Research ® | Critical Reviews (1990-2004) |
), Elastic Modulus (E), Poisson’s Ratio (
), Vickers Hardness (H), Four-point Flexural Strength Tested in 37°C Distilled Water, and Fracture Toughness by Fractography and Fracture Mechanics of Empress Ceramics (E1 and E2), the Adhesive and the Resin Composite (Z100)