Search

Statement of Problem: Airborne-particle abrasion of titanium is a clinically accepted method of surface preparation. As a side effect of airborne-particle abrasion, particles of the abrasive material get embedded into the surface. How particle presence or removal from the titanium surface affects the strength of the titanium-ceramic bond is unclear., Purpose: The purpose of this in vitro study was to determine the effect of removing Al 2 O 3 particles embedded into the surface by means of chemical surface treatment on the strength of the titanium-ceramic bond., Material and Methods: Titanium (TritanCpTi 1, Dentaurum, 99.5% Ti) disks were airborne-particle abraded with 110 μm Al 2 O 3 at a pressure of 0.4 MPa and an angle of approximately 45 degrees. The surface was etched chemically using 1 of 8 reagents, and the veneering ceramic applied and fired. The strength of the metal-ceramic bond was determined using the shear strength test. Further, the effect of thermal fatigue on the bond strength was evaluated. The results were analyzed with 2-way ANOVA and the Tukey honest significant difference (HSD) test (α=.05). Fractographic investigations and microscopic tests were also performed to determine the quality of the titanium-ceramic bond., Results: Effective etching of the titanium surface and removal of Al 2 O 3 particles included a 30% water solution of HNO 3  + 3% HF, a mixture of HNO 3  + HF + glycerin, a 4% solution of HF in H 2 O 2 , and a 4% solution of HF in H 2 O. A statistically significant difference (of about 50%) in bond strength was found between the groups subjected to chemical etching and the control group (P<.05). Additionally, a statistically significant difference (about 25%) was found after thermocycling (P<.05)., Conclusions: Removing the Al 2 O 3 particles embedded into the titanium surface after airborne-particle abrasion lowers the strength of the titanium-ceramic bond (P<.05). Thermocycling also weakens the strength of the titanium-ceramic bond, regardless of the surface preparation (P<.05)., (Copyright © 2018 Editorial Council for the Journal of Prosthetic Dentistry. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Objectives: The aim of this 5-year randomized controlled trial was to compare the longevity and clinical behavior of single posterior crowns made with pressable ceramic on zirconia and on metal frameworks, and if failures occur, to delineate the contributing factors., Methods: 72 patients, who needed the covering of at least a molar and/or premolar, were included in the study. All teeth were endodontically treated, with absence of periapical lesion or active periodontitis. Ninety single crowns were made with zirconia or metal framework and covered with pressable veneering ceramics. Two independent examiners assessed the survival of restorations at 6 months, 1-4 and 5 years after restoration placement including periapical radiographs, intraoral photographs, and USPHS modified criteria. The statistical analyses were performed with the Kaplan-Meier method., Results: One core fracture occurred in Zircad/Zirpress crowns and one metal ceramic crown was lost for root fracture. Chipping fracture of the veneering ceramic was detected in 2 metal-ceramic crowns and in 3 zirconia-based crowns. The Estimate Cumulative Survival (ECS) and the Estimate Cumulative Success (ECSs) with standard deviation (SE) were respectively 97,73±2,19 and 92,64±4,14 for zirconia-based crowns whereas 97,44±2,39 and 91,11±4,27 for porcelain fused to metal crowns., Conclusions: The present randomized controlled trial shows that the survival of zirconia-based and metal-based single crowns is similar over a follow-up period of 5 years. No significant differences in esthetic, functional and biological outcomes were demonstrated between the two groups. The main failure mode was the chipping fracture of the veneering ceramic in both materials. Study number on ClinicalTrial.gov NCT02758457., Clinical Significance: According to the results of this clinical study, zirconia-based rehabilitations with overpressing veneering technique represent a valid alternative to metal-based for posterior single crown restorations., (Copyright © 2017 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

A survey of the development of dental ceramics is presented to provide a better understanding of the rationale behind the development and clinical indications of each class of ceramic material. Knowledge of the composition, microstructure, and properties of a material is critical for selecting the right material for specific applications. The key to successful ceramic restorations rests on material selection, manufacturing technique, and restoration design, including the balancing of several factors such as residual stresses, tooth contact conditions, tooth size and shape, elastic modulus of the adhesives and tooth structure, and surface state., (Copyright © 2017 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Advantages and disadvantages of metal-ceramic and all-ceramic restorations are reviewed particularly from the aesthetic point of view. All-ceramic restorations offer the best results because they let the light through optimally. In constructing all-ceramic crowns on teeth which have been endodontically treated, the material used to rebuild the pin-abutments must be taken into consideration if the best aesthetic results are to be achieved. Materials which, because of their translucent characteristics, are the most aesthetic alternatives to metal alloy pin-abutments in rebuilding teeth which have been endodontically treated, are then described.