Advanced Search

Journal Navigation

Journal Home

Subscriptions

Archive

Contact Us

Table of Contents

CiteULike is a free service for managing and discovering scholarly references - click here to get started.

Sign In to gain access to subscriptions and/or personal tools.
Journal of Dental Research
This Article
Right arrow Abstract Freely available
Right arrow Full Text
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to Saved Citations
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Right arrow Request Reprints
Right arrow Add to My Marked Citations
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Right arrow Citing Articles via Scopus
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Yang, B.
Right arrow Articles by Kern, M.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Yang, B.
Right arrow Articles by Kern, M.
Right arrowPubmed/NCBI databases
*Compound via MeSH
*Substance via MeSH
Hazardous Substances DB
*ZIRCONIUM
Social Bookmarking
Add to CiteULike   Add to Complore   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us   Add to Digg   Add to Reddit   Add to Technorati   Add to Twitter  
What's this?

Influence of Contamination on Zirconia Ceramic Bonding

B. Yang1, S. Wolfart1, M. Scharnberg2, K. Ludwig1, R. Adelung2 and M. Kern1,*

1 Department of Prosthodontics, Propaedeutics and Dental Materials, Christian-Albrechts University at Kiel, Arnold-Heller-Str. 16, 24105 Kiel, Germany; and
2 Multicomponent Materials Institute, Faculty of Engineering, Christian-Albrechts University at Kiel, Kaiser Str. 2, 24143 Kiel, Germany


Figure 1
View larger version (16K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]

  		Figure 1. Study design for chemical analysis and bond strength testing.

 

Figure 2
View larger version (92K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]

  		Figure 2. Fractographic analysis and SEM examination. (a) Percentages of areas assigned to the failure modes observed in test groups after tensile bond strength testing. A, Adhesive failure at the ceramic surface; C, cohesive failure in luting composite resins (Panavia F 2.0 or Panavia 21) or tube-filling composite resin. Mean (SD) percentages of adhesive failure after 3 days and 150 days are: (for PF 2.0) CAA (after airborne-particle abrasion, no contamination), 9% (2%), 9.4% (0.5%); AA (airborne-particle abrasion cleaning), 9% (1%), 87% (3%); HP (phosphoric acid cleaning), 87% (4%), 33% (6%); AC (acetone cleaning), 100% (0%), 100% (0%); and TW (tap water cleaning), 100% (0%), 100% (0%). For P21, the percentages were: for CAA, 2% (0%), 3% (0.2%); for AA, 1% (0%), 5% (1%); for HP, 6.5% (1%), 79% (2%); for AC, 100% (0%), 100% (0%); and for TW, 100% (0%), 100% (0%). (b) Low-magnification SEM micrograph showing representative mixed failure modes, mostly with cohesive failure in Groups CAA and AA. (c) High-magnification SEM micrograph of A in (b), showing adhesive failure at the zirconia ceramic surface. (d) C1 in (b), showing cohesive failure in composite resins (Panavia F 2.0 or Panavia 21). (e) C2 in (b), showing cohesive failure in tube-filling composite resin (Clearfil FII).

 

Journal of Dental Research, Vol. 86, No. 8, 749-753 (2007)
DOI: 10.1177/154405910708600812
Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Complore Complore   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us   Add to Digg Digg   Add to Reddit Reddit   Add to Technorati Technorati   Add to Twitter Twitter    What's this?