This Article Abstract Full Text Full Text (PDF) Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Services Email this article to a friend Similar articles in this journal Similar articles in PubMed Alert me to new issues of the journal Add to Saved Citations Download to citation manager Request Permissions Request Reprints Add to My Marked Citations Citing Articles Citing Articles via HighWire Citing Articles via Google Scholar Citing Articles via Scopus Google Scholar Articles by Addison, O. Articles by Fleming, G.J.P. Search for Related Content PubMed PubMed Citation Articles by Addison, O. Articles by Fleming, G.J.P. Pubmed/NCBI databases Substance via MeSH Social Bookmarking                         What's this?

Resin Elasticity and the Strengthening of All-ceramic Restorations

¹ Biomaterials Unit, School of Dentistry, University of Birmingham, St. Chad’s Queensway, Birmingham B4 6NN, UK; and
² Materials Science Unit, Division of Oral Biosciences, Dublin Dental School & Hospital, Trinity College Dublin, Ireland;

View larger version (15K): [in this window] [in a new window]   Figure 1. Fracture strength data for the uncoated and resin-coated groups examined. (a) Survival probability distributions of the uncoated m = 58.0 (4.7), group A] and Flowline, Rely-XTM Veneer Cement and Clearfil AP-X resin-coated [m = 78.5 (6.6), 91.1 (7.8), and 120.2 (8.0), groups B, C, and D, respectively] control surfaces for n = 60 specimens per group. m is the mean fracture strength, and the numbers in parentheses are standard deviations highlighting the significant strength increase on resin coating with resins of increasing elastic moduli. (b) Weibull distribution of the uncoated (group A) specimens highlighting two distributions where m = 27.1 (3.5) and 11.4 (1.5) for the low- and high-failure stresses, the Flowline resin-coated (group B) highlighting one distribution where m = 14.5 (1.9) for all failure stresses, Rely-XTM Veneer Cement and Clearfil AP-X [groups C and D, respectively, highlighting two distributions where m = 29.9 (7.7) and 10.5 (1.6), and m = 32.0 (4.1) and 14.0 (1.8), respectively], for the low- and high-failure stresses for n = 60 specimens per group. ’m’ is the Weibull modulus, and the numbers in parentheses are standard deviations.

View larger version (40K): [in this window] [in a new window]   Figure 2. Schematic representation of the hybrid ceramic-resin layer and the impact of resin elasticity on porcelain strengthening. (a) Representative profilometry trace of the 50-µm alumina-abraded controlled defect population for the dentin porcelain surfaces examined in the current study. (b) Plot of the mean flexural moduli of the resins (Flowline, Rely-XTM Veneer Cement, and Clearfil AP-X, Groups B–D, respectively) against the mean bi-axial flexure strengths calculated at the ceramic-resin interface (z = 0) of resin-coated alumina-abraded disc-shaped specimens.

Journal of Dental Research, Vol. 86, No. 6, 519-523 (2007)
DOI: 10.1177/154405910708600606


CiteULike    Complore    Connotea    Del.icio.us    Digg    Reddit    Technorati    Twitter    What's this?