The Journal of Contemporary Dental Practice

Register      Login

SEARCH WITHIN CONTENT

FIND ARTICLE

Volume / Issue

Online First

Archive
Volume  25 (2024)
Volume  24 (2023)
Volume  23 (2022)
Volume  22 (2021)
Volume  21 (2020)
Volume  20 (2019)
Volume  19 (2018)
Volume  18 (2017)
Volume  17 (2016)
Volume  16 (2015)
Volume  15 (2014)
Volume  14 (2013)
Volume  13 (2012)
Volume  12 (2011)
Volume  11 (2010)
Volume  10 (2009)
Volume  9 (2008)
Volume  8 (2007)
Volume  7 (2006)
Volume  6 (2005)
Volume  5 (2004)
Volume  4 (2003)
Volume  3 (2002)
Volume  2 (2001)
Volume  1 (1999)
Related articles

VOLUME 25 , ISSUE 8 ( August, 2024 ) > List of Articles

ORIGINAL RESEARCH

In Vitro Analysis of Shear Bond Strength in Repaired Cohesive and Adhesive Fractures of Conventional and DMLS Porcelain-fused-to-metal Crowns

Ragul Irissan, Abhinav Mohan, Cimmy Augustine, Dipin Puthiya Parambath, Ahnaf Abdulla, Ankitha Thejus

Keywords : Adhesion, Ceramic coatings, Dental prosthesis, Fractures, Metal alloys, Porcelain, Stress, Shear strength

Citation Information : Irissan R, Mohan A, Augustine C, Parambath DP, Abdulla A, Thejus A. In Vitro Analysis of Shear Bond Strength in Repaired Cohesive and Adhesive Fractures of Conventional and DMLS Porcelain-fused-to-metal Crowns. J Contemp Dent Pract 2024; 25 (8):726-731.

DOI: 10.5005/jp-journals-10024-3750

License: CC BY-NC 4.0

Published Online: 26-11-2024

Copyright Statement:  Copyright © 2024; The Author(s).


Abstract

Aim: Porcelain-fused-to-metal (PFM) restorations are essential in fixed prosthodontics for their strength and esthetics, but are prone to fractures due to material disparities and stress factors. This study evaluates the shear bond strength (SBS) of two porcelain repair systems for cohesive and adhesive fractures in conventional PFM and direct metal laser-sintered (DMLS) restorations, addressing clinical repair needs. Materials and methods: Thirty metal-ceramic discs were fabricated and divided into two main groups based on the fabrication method: Conventional casting and DMLS. Each group had three subgroups: Conventional casting (A: Control, B: Cohesive defect, C: Adhesive defect) and DMLS (D: Control, E: Cohesive defect, F: Adhesive defect), each with 5 specimens. Shear bond strength was measured using a Universal Testing Machine (UTM) at 0.5 mm/min. Data were analyzed with a one-way ANOVA (α = 0.05), and Tukey's post hoc test was used for significant differences. Student's t-tests compared SBS between control groups. Results: A one-way ANOVA revealed significant differences in SBS among Conventional Casting subgroups (p < 0.001). Subgroup A (36.282 ± 1.692 MPa) had higher SBS than B (13.202 ± 1.336 MPa) and C (17.033 ± 1.634 MPa), with Tukey's test confirming significant differences (p < 0.001). For DMLS subgroups, subgroup D (37.768 ± 0.560 MPa) had higher SBS than E (22.381 ± 1.137 MPa) and F (13.245 ± 0.693 MPa), with Tukey's test showing significant differences (p < 0.001). No significant difference was found between subgroups A and D (p = 0.10). Subgroup E had a higher SBS than B (p < 0.001), and subgroup C had a higher SBS than F (p = 0.001). Conclusion: This study offers insights into the performance of two porcelain repair systems, aiding clinicians in selecting effective materials and techniques for PFM restoration repairs. Clinical significance: Understanding the bond strength of these repair systems can enhance clinical outcomes by guiding the selection of optimal repair materials and techniques, improving the longevity and durability of fractured PFM restorations.

PDF Share
  1. Strub JR, Stiffler S, Schärer P. Causes of failure following oral rehabilitation: Biological versus technical factors. Quintessence Int Berl Ger 1985 1988;19(3):215–222. PMID: 3269577.
  2. Chung KH, Hwang YC. Bonding strengths of porcelain repair systems with various surface treatments. J Prosthet Dent 1997;78(3):267–274. DOI: 10.1016/s0022-3913(97)70025-8.
  3. Al-Moaleem MM, Al-Ahmari NM, Al-Dosari MK, et al. Repairing of fractured metal ceramic restorations: Techniques review. Int J Contemp Dent 2013;4(1):21–30. Corpus id: 137546197.
  4. Ghanbarzadeh J, Goharian R, Adelkardan R. In-vivo evaluation of durability of intraoral porcelain repair. Journal of Mashhad Dental School 2003;27(1):43.
  5. Burke FJT. Repair of metal-ceramic restorations using an abrasive silica-impregnating technique: Two case reports. Dent Update 2002;29(8):398–402. DOI: 10.12968/denu.2002.29.8.398.
  6. Kalra A, Mohan MS, Gowda EM. Comparison of shear bond strength of two porcelain repair systems after different surface treatment. Contemp Clin Dent 2015;6(2):196–200. DOI: 10.4103/0976-237X.156045.
  7. Haselton DR, Diaz-Arnold AM, Dunne Jr JT. Shear bond strengths of 2 intraoral porcelain repair systems to porcelain or metal substrates. J Prosthet Dent 2001;86(5):526–531. DOI: 10.1067/mpr.2001.119843.
  8. Galiatsatos AA. An indirect repair technique for fractured metal-ceramic restorations: A clinical report. J Prosthet Dent 2005;93(4):321–323. DOI: 10.1016/j.prosdent.2004.12.018.
  9. Patel S, Foschi F, Mannocci F, Patel K, et al. External cervical resorption: A three-dimensional classification. Int Endod J 2018;51(2):206–214. DOI: 10.1111/iej.12824.
  10. Latta MA, Barkmeier WW. Approaches for intraoral repair of ceramic restorations. Compend Contin Educ Dent 2000;21(8):635–639. PMID: 11199654.
  11. Diaz-Arnold AM, Wistrom DW, Aquilino SA, et al. Bond strengths of porcelain repair adhesive systems. Am J Dent 1993;6(6):291–294. PMID: 7880478.
  12. Ozcan M, Niedermeier W. Clinical study on the reasons for and location of failures of metal-ceramic restorations and survival of repairs. Int J Prosthodont 2002;15(3):299–302. PMID: 12066495.
  13. Yadav JS, Dabas N, Bhargava A, et al. Comparing two intraoral porcelain repair systems for shear bond strength in repaired cohesive and adhesive fractures, for porcelain-fused-to-metal restorations: An: In vitro: Study. J Indian Prosthodont Soc 2019;19(4):362–368. DOI: 10.4103/jips.jips_120_19.
  14. Creugers NH, Snoek PA, Käyser AF. An experimental porcelain repair system evaluated under controlled clinical conditions. J Prosthet Dent 1992;68(5):724–727. DOI: 10.1016/0022-3913(92)90191-c.
  15. dos Santos JG, Fonseca RG, Adabo GL, et al. Shear bond strength of metal-ceramic repair systems. J Prosthet Dent 2006;96(3):165–173. DOI: 10.1016/j.prosdent.2006.07.002.
  16. Craig RG. Restorative dental materials, 13th edition. Philadelphia, PA: Mosby; 1980. pp. 224–225.
  17. Lopes SC, Pagnano VO, Rollo JMD de A, et al. Correlation between metal-ceramic bond strength and coefficient of linear thermal expansion difference. J Appl Oral Sci Rev 2009;17(2):122–128. DOI: 10.1590/S1678-77572009000200010.
  18. Griffith A. The phenomena of rupture and flow in solids. London: The Royal Society Publishing. 1997. pp. 163–198.
  19. Armstrong S, Geraldeli S, Maia R, et al. Adhesion to tooth structure: A critical review of “micro” bond strength test methods. Dent Mater 2010;26(2):e50–e62. DOI: 10.1016/j.dental.2009.11.155.
  20. Sirisha K, Rambabu T, Ravishankar Y, et al. Validity of bond strength tests: A critical review-Part II. J Conserv Dent Endod 2014;17(5):420–426. DOI: 10.4103/0972-0707.139823.
  21. Özcan M, Dündar M, Erhan Çömlekoğlu M. Adhesion concepts in dentistry: Tooth and material aspects. J Adhes Sci Technol 2012;26(24):2661–2681. DOI: 10.1080/01694243.2012.691038.
  22. Özcan M. Longevity of repaired composite and metal-ceramic restorations: 3.5-year clinical study. J Dent Res 2006;85: Abstract-No. PMID: 25485316.
  23. Frankenberger R, Kramer N, Sindel J. Repair strength of etched vs silica-coated metal-ceramic and all-ceramic restorations. Oper Dent 2000;25(3):209–215. PMID: 11203818.
  24. Blatz MB, Sadan A, Arch Jr GH, et al. In vitro evaluation of long-term bonding of Procera All Ceram alumina restorations with a modified resin luting agent. J Prosthet Dent 2003;89(4):381–387. DOI: 10.1067/mpr.2003.89.
  25. Nalcaci A, Kucukesmen C, Uludag B. Effect of high-powered LED polymerization on the shear bond strength of a light-polymerized resin luting agent to ceramic and dentin. J Prosthet Dent 2005;94(2):140–145. DOI: 10.1016/j.prosdent.2005.05.001.
PDF Share
PDF Share

© Jaypee Brothers Medical Publishers (P) LTD.