Effects of surface treatments on bond strength of dental Ti–20Cr and Ti–10Zr alloys to porcelain
The purpose of this study was to investigate the effect of surface treatments, including sandblasting and grinding, on the bond strength between a low-fusing porcelain and c.p. Ti, Ti–20Cr and Ti–10Zr alloys. The surface treatments were divided into 2 groups. Grinding surface treatment was applied t...
Gespeichert in:
Veröffentlicht in: | Journal of alloys and compounds 2010-08, Vol.505 (1), p.332-336 |
---|---|
Hauptverfasser: | , , , , |
Format: | Artikel |
Sprache: | eng |
Schlagworte: | |
Online-Zugang: | Volltext |
Tags: |
Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
|
container_end_page | 336 |
---|---|
container_issue | 1 |
container_start_page | 332 |
container_title | Journal of alloys and compounds |
container_volume | 505 |
creator | Lin, Hsi-Chen Wu, Shih-Ching Ho, Wen-Fu Huang, Ling-Hsiu Hsu, Hsueh-Chuan |
description | The purpose of this study was to investigate the effect of surface treatments, including sandblasting and grinding, on the bond strength between a low-fusing porcelain and c.p. Ti, Ti–20Cr and Ti–10Zr alloys. The surface treatments were divided into 2 groups. Grinding surface treatment was applied to the first group, which served as the control, and sandblasting was applied to the second group. After treatment, low-fusing porcelain (Titankeramik) was fired onto the surface of the specimens. A universal testing machine was used to perform a 3-point bending test. The metal–ceramic interfaces were subjected to scanning electron microscopic analysis. Of the sandblasted samples, the debonding test showed that Ti–20Cr alloy had the strongest (31.50
MPa) titanium–ceramic bond (
p
<
005), followed by c.p. Ti (29.4
MPa) and Ti–10Zr (24.3
MPa). Of the grinded samples, Ti–20Cr alloy showed 27.3
MPa titanium–ceramic bond (
p
<
005), followed by c.p. Ti (14.3
MPa) and Ti–10Zr (failure). The SEM micrographs of the metal surface after debonding showed residual porcelain retained on all samples. On the whole, sandblasting surface treatment appears to have had a more beneficial effect on the Ti–ceramic bond strength than grinding surface treatment. Furthermore, surface treatment of Ti–20Cr with either grinding or sandblasting resulted in adequate bond strength, which exceeded the lower limit value in the ISO 9693 standard (25
MPa). |
doi_str_mv | 10.1016/j.jallcom.2010.05.174 |
format | Article |
fullrecord | <record><control><sourceid>proquest_cross</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_849470230</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><els_id>S0925838810014647</els_id><sourcerecordid>849470230</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c341t-5c90cee8eb2eed8ae3139cfa8b7125ea796f057301198239f19cfc292fdcac393</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNqFkD1OAzEQhS0EEiFwBCR3VLuM7f2xK4Si8CNFogkNjeV4x7CrzTrYGyQ67sANOQkOSU81em_ejGY-Qi4Z5AxYdd3lnel769c5h-RBmbO6OCITJmuRFVWljskEFC8zKaQ8JWcxdgDAlGAT0sydQztG6h2N2-CMRToGNOMah5070JUfGhqTN7yOb7tYkzqmp8v25-ubwyxQkwJ_isFLUn3vPyMdPd34YLE37XBOTpzpI14c6pQ8382Xs4ds8XT_OLtdZFYUbMxKq8AiSlxxxEYaFEwo64xc1YyXaGpVOShrAYwpyYVyLHUtV9w11lihxJRc7fdugn_fYhz1uo3phN4M6LdRy0IVNXABKVnukzb4GAM6vQnt2oRPzUDvoOpOH6DqHVQNpU5Q09zNfg7TGx8tBh1ti4PFpg0Jo258-8-GX6sYhT8</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>849470230</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Effects of surface treatments on bond strength of dental Ti–20Cr and Ti–10Zr alloys to porcelain</title><source>Elsevier ScienceDirect Journals</source><creator>Lin, Hsi-Chen ; Wu, Shih-Ching ; Ho, Wen-Fu ; Huang, Ling-Hsiu ; Hsu, Hsueh-Chuan</creator><creatorcontrib>Lin, Hsi-Chen ; Wu, Shih-Ching ; Ho, Wen-Fu ; Huang, Ling-Hsiu ; Hsu, Hsueh-Chuan</creatorcontrib><description>The purpose of this study was to investigate the effect of surface treatments, including sandblasting and grinding, on the bond strength between a low-fusing porcelain and c.p. Ti, Ti–20Cr and Ti–10Zr alloys. The surface treatments were divided into 2 groups. Grinding surface treatment was applied to the first group, which served as the control, and sandblasting was applied to the second group. After treatment, low-fusing porcelain (Titankeramik) was fired onto the surface of the specimens. A universal testing machine was used to perform a 3-point bending test. The metal–ceramic interfaces were subjected to scanning electron microscopic analysis. Of the sandblasted samples, the debonding test showed that Ti–20Cr alloy had the strongest (31.50
MPa) titanium–ceramic bond (
p
<
005), followed by c.p. Ti (29.4
MPa) and Ti–10Zr (24.3
MPa). Of the grinded samples, Ti–20Cr alloy showed 27.3
MPa titanium–ceramic bond (
p
<
005), followed by c.p. Ti (14.3
MPa) and Ti–10Zr (failure). The SEM micrographs of the metal surface after debonding showed residual porcelain retained on all samples. On the whole, sandblasting surface treatment appears to have had a more beneficial effect on the Ti–ceramic bond strength than grinding surface treatment. Furthermore, surface treatment of Ti–20Cr with either grinding or sandblasting resulted in adequate bond strength, which exceeded the lower limit value in the ISO 9693 standard (25
MPa).</description><identifier>ISSN: 0925-8388</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1873-4669</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1016/j.jallcom.2010.05.174</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>Elsevier B.V</publisher><subject>Alloys ; Bonding strength ; Ceramics ; Metals and alloys ; Porcelain ; Sandblasting ; Scanning electron microscopy ; Surface treatment ; Titanium ; Titanium base alloys</subject><ispartof>Journal of alloys and compounds, 2010-08, Vol.505 (1), p.332-336</ispartof><rights>2010 Elsevier B.V.</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c341t-5c90cee8eb2eed8ae3139cfa8b7125ea796f057301198239f19cfc292fdcac393</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c341t-5c90cee8eb2eed8ae3139cfa8b7125ea796f057301198239f19cfc292fdcac393</cites></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0925838810014647$$EHTML$$P50$$Gelsevier$$H</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>314,776,780,3536,27903,27904,65309</link.rule.ids></links><search><creatorcontrib>Lin, Hsi-Chen</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Wu, Shih-Ching</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Ho, Wen-Fu</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Huang, Ling-Hsiu</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Hsu, Hsueh-Chuan</creatorcontrib><title>Effects of surface treatments on bond strength of dental Ti–20Cr and Ti–10Zr alloys to porcelain</title><title>Journal of alloys and compounds</title><description>The purpose of this study was to investigate the effect of surface treatments, including sandblasting and grinding, on the bond strength between a low-fusing porcelain and c.p. Ti, Ti–20Cr and Ti–10Zr alloys. The surface treatments were divided into 2 groups. Grinding surface treatment was applied to the first group, which served as the control, and sandblasting was applied to the second group. After treatment, low-fusing porcelain (Titankeramik) was fired onto the surface of the specimens. A universal testing machine was used to perform a 3-point bending test. The metal–ceramic interfaces were subjected to scanning electron microscopic analysis. Of the sandblasted samples, the debonding test showed that Ti–20Cr alloy had the strongest (31.50
MPa) titanium–ceramic bond (
p
<
005), followed by c.p. Ti (29.4
MPa) and Ti–10Zr (24.3
MPa). Of the grinded samples, Ti–20Cr alloy showed 27.3
MPa titanium–ceramic bond (
p
<
005), followed by c.p. Ti (14.3
MPa) and Ti–10Zr (failure). The SEM micrographs of the metal surface after debonding showed residual porcelain retained on all samples. On the whole, sandblasting surface treatment appears to have had a more beneficial effect on the Ti–ceramic bond strength than grinding surface treatment. Furthermore, surface treatment of Ti–20Cr with either grinding or sandblasting resulted in adequate bond strength, which exceeded the lower limit value in the ISO 9693 standard (25
MPa).</description><subject>Alloys</subject><subject>Bonding strength</subject><subject>Ceramics</subject><subject>Metals and alloys</subject><subject>Porcelain</subject><subject>Sandblasting</subject><subject>Scanning electron microscopy</subject><subject>Surface treatment</subject><subject>Titanium</subject><subject>Titanium base alloys</subject><issn>0925-8388</issn><issn>1873-4669</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2010</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><recordid>eNqFkD1OAzEQhS0EEiFwBCR3VLuM7f2xK4Si8CNFogkNjeV4x7CrzTrYGyQ67sANOQkOSU81em_ejGY-Qi4Z5AxYdd3lnel769c5h-RBmbO6OCITJmuRFVWljskEFC8zKaQ8JWcxdgDAlGAT0sydQztG6h2N2-CMRToGNOMah5070JUfGhqTN7yOb7tYkzqmp8v25-ubwyxQkwJ_isFLUn3vPyMdPd34YLE37XBOTpzpI14c6pQ8382Xs4ds8XT_OLtdZFYUbMxKq8AiSlxxxEYaFEwo64xc1YyXaGpVOShrAYwpyYVyLHUtV9w11lihxJRc7fdugn_fYhz1uo3phN4M6LdRy0IVNXABKVnukzb4GAM6vQnt2oRPzUDvoOpOH6DqHVQNpU5Q09zNfg7TGx8tBh1ti4PFpg0Jo258-8-GX6sYhT8</recordid><startdate>20100827</startdate><enddate>20100827</enddate><creator>Lin, Hsi-Chen</creator><creator>Wu, Shih-Ching</creator><creator>Ho, Wen-Fu</creator><creator>Huang, Ling-Hsiu</creator><creator>Hsu, Hsueh-Chuan</creator><general>Elsevier B.V</general><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>7QQ</scope><scope>8BQ</scope><scope>8FD</scope><scope>JG9</scope></search><sort><creationdate>20100827</creationdate><title>Effects of surface treatments on bond strength of dental Ti–20Cr and Ti–10Zr alloys to porcelain</title><author>Lin, Hsi-Chen ; Wu, Shih-Ching ; Ho, Wen-Fu ; Huang, Ling-Hsiu ; Hsu, Hsueh-Chuan</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c341t-5c90cee8eb2eed8ae3139cfa8b7125ea796f057301198239f19cfc292fdcac393</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2010</creationdate><topic>Alloys</topic><topic>Bonding strength</topic><topic>Ceramics</topic><topic>Metals and alloys</topic><topic>Porcelain</topic><topic>Sandblasting</topic><topic>Scanning electron microscopy</topic><topic>Surface treatment</topic><topic>Titanium</topic><topic>Titanium base alloys</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Lin, Hsi-Chen</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Wu, Shih-Ching</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Ho, Wen-Fu</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Huang, Ling-Hsiu</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Hsu, Hsueh-Chuan</creatorcontrib><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>Ceramic Abstracts</collection><collection>METADEX</collection><collection>Technology Research Database</collection><collection>Materials Research Database</collection><jtitle>Journal of alloys and compounds</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Lin, Hsi-Chen</au><au>Wu, Shih-Ching</au><au>Ho, Wen-Fu</au><au>Huang, Ling-Hsiu</au><au>Hsu, Hsueh-Chuan</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Effects of surface treatments on bond strength of dental Ti–20Cr and Ti–10Zr alloys to porcelain</atitle><jtitle>Journal of alloys and compounds</jtitle><date>2010-08-27</date><risdate>2010</risdate><volume>505</volume><issue>1</issue><spage>332</spage><epage>336</epage><pages>332-336</pages><issn>0925-8388</issn><eissn>1873-4669</eissn><abstract>The purpose of this study was to investigate the effect of surface treatments, including sandblasting and grinding, on the bond strength between a low-fusing porcelain and c.p. Ti, Ti–20Cr and Ti–10Zr alloys. The surface treatments were divided into 2 groups. Grinding surface treatment was applied to the first group, which served as the control, and sandblasting was applied to the second group. After treatment, low-fusing porcelain (Titankeramik) was fired onto the surface of the specimens. A universal testing machine was used to perform a 3-point bending test. The metal–ceramic interfaces were subjected to scanning electron microscopic analysis. Of the sandblasted samples, the debonding test showed that Ti–20Cr alloy had the strongest (31.50
MPa) titanium–ceramic bond (
p
<
005), followed by c.p. Ti (29.4
MPa) and Ti–10Zr (24.3
MPa). Of the grinded samples, Ti–20Cr alloy showed 27.3
MPa titanium–ceramic bond (
p
<
005), followed by c.p. Ti (14.3
MPa) and Ti–10Zr (failure). The SEM micrographs of the metal surface after debonding showed residual porcelain retained on all samples. On the whole, sandblasting surface treatment appears to have had a more beneficial effect on the Ti–ceramic bond strength than grinding surface treatment. Furthermore, surface treatment of Ti–20Cr with either grinding or sandblasting resulted in adequate bond strength, which exceeded the lower limit value in the ISO 9693 standard (25
MPa).</abstract><pub>Elsevier B.V</pub><doi>10.1016/j.jallcom.2010.05.174</doi><tpages>5</tpages></addata></record> |
fulltext | fulltext |
identifier | ISSN: 0925-8388 |
ispartof | Journal of alloys and compounds, 2010-08, Vol.505 (1), p.332-336 |
issn | 0925-8388 1873-4669 |
language | eng |
recordid | cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_849470230 |
source | Elsevier ScienceDirect Journals |
subjects | Alloys Bonding strength Ceramics Metals and alloys Porcelain Sandblasting Scanning electron microscopy Surface treatment Titanium Titanium base alloys |
title | Effects of surface treatments on bond strength of dental Ti–20Cr and Ti–10Zr alloys to porcelain |
url | https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-01-26T16%3A15%3A55IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_cross&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Effects%20of%20surface%20treatments%20on%20bond%20strength%20of%20dental%20Ti%E2%80%9320Cr%20and%20Ti%E2%80%9310Zr%20alloys%20to%20porcelain&rft.jtitle=Journal%20of%20alloys%20and%20compounds&rft.au=Lin,%20Hsi-Chen&rft.date=2010-08-27&rft.volume=505&rft.issue=1&rft.spage=332&rft.epage=336&rft.pages=332-336&rft.issn=0925-8388&rft.eissn=1873-4669&rft_id=info:doi/10.1016/j.jallcom.2010.05.174&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_cross%3E849470230%3C/proquest_cross%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=849470230&rft_id=info:pmid/&rft_els_id=S0925838810014647&rfr_iscdi=true |