4.5 Article Proceedings Paper

Flexural strength of a layered zirconia and porcelain dental all-ceramic system

期刊

JOURNAL OF PROSTHETIC DENTISTRY
卷 94, 期 2, 页码 125-131

出版社

MOSBY-ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.prosdent.2005.05.007

关键词

-

资金

  1. NIDCR NIH HHS [DE 14189] Funding Source: Medline

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Statement of problem. New processing techniques have facilitated the use of zirconia core materials in all-ceramic dental prostheses. Zirconia has many potential advantages compared to existing core materials; however, its performance when layered with porcelain has not been evaluated. Purpose. This study investigated the strength of a wide variety of layered zirconia and porcelain beams to determine whether the inclusion of zirconia cores results in improved strength. Material and methods. Eight types of layered or simple zirconia and porcelain beams (n = 10), approximately fixed partial denture-size, were made of a tetragonal polycrystalline zirconium dioxide partially stabilized with yttria core (Lava System Frame) and a feldspathic dental porcelain (Lava Ceram veneer ceramic). Elastic moduli of the materials were measured using an acoustic method. Maximum force and modulus of rupture were determined using 3-point flexural testing and a universal testing machine. Descriptive statistical methods were used. Results. Beams with porcelain tensile surfaces recorded mean tensile strengths or moduli of rupture from 77 to 8 5 MPa, whereas beams with zirconia tensile surfaces recorded moduli of rupture almost an order of magnitude higher, 636 to 786 MPa. The elastic moduli of the porcelain and zirconia materials were 71 and 224 GPa, respectively. Crack propagation following initial tensile cracking often involved the porcelain-zirconia interface, as well as bulk porcelain and zirconia. Conclusion. The layered zirconia-porcelain system tested recorded substantially higher moduli of rupture than have been previously reported for other layered all-ceramic systems.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据