Evaluation of shear bond strength based on substructure materials and ceramic veneering techniques

TL;DR

This study compared how different materials and techniques affect the bond strength in dental restorations made of two layers.

Contribution

The study reveals that pressing technique provides better bond strength than layering for 3Y-TZP substructures.

Findings

Pressing technique showed higher shear bond strength than layering for 3Y-TZP substructures.

Co-Cr alloys had higher bond strength than 3Y-TZP when using the layering technique.

Elemental interdiffusion was more extensive in pressing technique for 3Y-TZP.

Abstract

Bilayered restorations have both the strength of the substructure material and the esthetics of the veneer material; however, they should have appropriate bonding between the two materials. This study aimed to evaluate the shear bond strength (SBS) according to the substructure material and veneering technique used in bilayered restorations.

The experimental group was divided into four groups (n = 15 per group) based on the substructure materials (cobalt‐chromium [Co‐Cr] alloy and 3 mol% yttrium‐stabilized tetragonal zirconia polycrystal [3Y‐TZP]) and veneering techniques (pressing and layering). Veneering was performed with disk shape (diameter: 5 mm, height: 2 mm) on a substructure using each veneering technique. Shear stress was applied to the interface of the substructure and the veneering ceramic using a universal testing machine. The shear bond strength, according to the substructure and veneering technique, was analyzed using a two‐way analysis of variance with a post‐hoc Tukey's honestly significant difference test. The failure mode was observed, and the surface was analyzed using a scanning electron microscope and energy‐dispersive spectroscopy.

The shSBS of the Co‐Cr alloy and 3Y‐TZP substructure was not different (p > 0.05); however, the pressing technique showed a higher SBS than the layering technique (p < 0.05). The SBS did not differ depending on the veneering technique in the Co‐Cr alloys (p > 0.05), whereas the SBS in the pressing technique was higher than that in the layering technique for 3Y‐TZP (p < 0.05). In the layering technique, the Co‐Cr alloy showed a higher SBS than 3Y‐TZP (p < 0.05). In the failure mode, mixed failure occurred most frequently in all groups. Extensive elemental interdiffusion was observed through the opaque layer in the Co‐Cr alloy, regardless of the veneering technique. In 3Y‐TZP, a wider range of elemental interdiffusion was observed in the pressing technique than in the layering technique.

In bilayered restorations with a 3Y‐TZP substructure, the pressing technique yielded higher bonding strength than layering. Using the layering technique, 3Y‐TZP showed a lower SBS than the Co‐Cr alloy. In bilayered restorations using 3Y‐TZP as a substructure, the veneering technique and thermal compatibility of the materials must be considered.

Figures