Limits...
Comparative evaluation of bonding strength of computer aided machined ceramic, pressable ceramic, and milled metal implant abutment copings and effect of surface conditioning on bonding strength: An in vitro study

View Article: PubMed Central - PubMed

ABSTRACT

Background/purpose:: The aim of this study was to compare the shear bond strength of computer aided design/computer aided machined ceramic (CAD/CAM), pressable ceramic, and milled metal implant copings on abutment and the effect of surface conditioning on bonding strength.

Materials and methods:: A total of 90 test samples were fabricated on three titanium abutments. Among 90 test samples, 30 copings were fabricated by CAD/CAM, 30 by pressable, and 30 by milling of titanium metal. These 30 test samples in each group were further subdivided equally for surface treatment. Fifteen out of 30 test samples in each group were surface conditioned with airborne particle abrasion. All the 90 test samples were luted on abutment with glass ionomer cement. Bonding strength was evaluated for all the samples using universal testing machine at a crosshead speed of 5 mm/min. The results obtained were compared and evaluated using one-way ANOVA with post-hoc and unpaired t-test at a significance level of 0.05.

Results:: The mean difference for CAD/CAM surface conditioned subgroup was 1.28 ± 0.12, for nonconditioned subgroup was 1.20 ± 0.11. The mean difference for pressable surface conditioned subgroup was 1.18 ± 0.04, and for nonconditioned subgroup was 0.75 ± 0.28. The mean difference for milled metal surface conditioned subgroup was 2.57 ± 0.58, and for nonconditioned subgroup was 1.49 ± 0.15.

Conclusions:: On comparison of bonding strength, milled metal copings had an edge over the other two materials, and surface conditioning increased the bond strength.

No MeSH data available.


Pull-off test for determination of bonding strength
© Copyright Policy - open-access
Related In: Results  -  Collection

License
getmorefigures.php?uid=PMC4837770&req=5

Figure 5: Pull-off test for determination of bonding strength

Mentions: In the present study, shear bond strength was evaluated by universal testing machine [Figure 5] (22.5 K Instron, model 4482). Forces were applied axially on coping cemented on abutment at a cross-head speed of 1.0 mm/min. A computer connected with the Instron machine recorded the result of each test. The nonadhesive chemical bond strength (∂) values (expressed in effects of MPa) were calculated using the formula: ∂ = L/A.[9] Where L is load (in N) and A is the adhesive area (in m2).[12]


Comparative evaluation of bonding strength of computer aided machined ceramic, pressable ceramic, and milled metal implant abutment copings and effect of surface conditioning on bonding strength: An in vitro study
Pull-off test for determination of bonding strength
© Copyright Policy - open-access
Related In: Results  -  Collection

License
Show All Figures
getmorefigures.php?uid=PMC4837770&req=5

Figure 5: Pull-off test for determination of bonding strength
Mentions: In the present study, shear bond strength was evaluated by universal testing machine [Figure 5] (22.5 K Instron, model 4482). Forces were applied axially on coping cemented on abutment at a cross-head speed of 1.0 mm/min. A computer connected with the Instron machine recorded the result of each test. The nonadhesive chemical bond strength (∂) values (expressed in effects of MPa) were calculated using the formula: ∂ = L/A.[9] Where L is load (in N) and A is the adhesive area (in m2).[12]

View Article: PubMed Central - PubMed

ABSTRACT

Background/purpose:: The aim of this study was to compare the shear bond strength of computer aided design/computer aided machined ceramic (CAD/CAM), pressable ceramic, and milled metal implant copings on abutment and the effect of surface conditioning on bonding strength.

Materials and methods:: A total of 90 test samples were fabricated on three titanium abutments. Among 90 test samples, 30 copings were fabricated by CAD/CAM, 30 by pressable, and 30 by milling of titanium metal. These 30 test samples in each group were further subdivided equally for surface treatment. Fifteen out of 30 test samples in each group were surface conditioned with airborne particle abrasion. All the 90 test samples were luted on abutment with glass ionomer cement. Bonding strength was evaluated for all the samples using universal testing machine at a crosshead speed of 5 mm/min. The results obtained were compared and evaluated using one-way ANOVA with post-hoc and unpaired t-test at a significance level of 0.05.

Results:: The mean difference for CAD/CAM surface conditioned subgroup was 1.28 ± 0.12, for nonconditioned subgroup was 1.20 ± 0.11. The mean difference for pressable surface conditioned subgroup was 1.18 ± 0.04, and for nonconditioned subgroup was 0.75 ± 0.28. The mean difference for milled metal surface conditioned subgroup was 2.57 ± 0.58, and for nonconditioned subgroup was 1.49 ± 0.15.

Conclusions:: On comparison of bonding strength, milled metal copings had an edge over the other two materials, and surface conditioning increased the bond strength.

No MeSH data available.