Section Original Articles

Distinctive analysis of the shear bond strength of Porcelain Fused Metal substructure fabricated by conventional casting, direct metal Laser Sintering and CAD-CAM processing techniques

Shear bond strength of PFM Substructure fabricated by conventional casting, direct metal Laser Sintering and CAD-CAM Techniques
R Usharani
Ravalika N Kothuri
Tejasvi Daram

##plugins.themes.academic_pro.article.main##

Abstract

Background: The use of metal-ceramic restorations began in the late 1950’s allowing the development of prosthetic rehabilitation with better cosmetic results replacing previously in-demand precious metals. These restorations are commonly prepared using conventional casting, Direct Metal Laser Sintering and CAD-CAM processing techniques. The present study has been attempted to perform a distinctive analysis of the shear bond strength of porcelain fused metal substructure fabricated by conventional casting, Direct Metal Laser Sintering and CAD-CAM processing techniques.
Materials and Methods: The present study follows an in-vitro study design. A total of 45 samples were prepared and divided into 3 groups (n=15 in each group): conventional casting, Direct Metal Laser Sintering and CAD-CAM groups. The shear bond strength of all the specimens was measured using Universal Testing Machine. The specimens were subjected to shear load at the metal-porcelain interface with increasing load and the crosshead speed of 2 mm/sec till the disc debonded completely. The debonded samples were observed under Scanning Electron Microscope to assess the kind of failure.
Results: The obtained data of three experimental group samples were analysed using the student’s t-test, One-way ANOVA test and Tukey’s Post-hoc test. Results of t-test showed that, of all the three techniques, Casting technique shows highest mean of force and shear bond strength, and this mean difference was significant. The same results were shown in One way ANOVA test and Tukey’s Post-hoc test.
Conclusion: From the observations of the present study, it can be stated that Casting technique showed highest mean of load and shear bond strength followed by the CAD/CAM method and DMLS technique, respectively. The results of this study ranged from 69-87MPa which is within the safety borders. Therefore, it can be concluded that all three methods can be used to fabricate the metal substructure in metal-ceramic restoration.
Keywords: CAD-CAM, Casting, Direct Metal Laser Sintering, Shear bond strength.

##plugins.themes.academic_pro.article.details##

Author Biographies

R Usharani, Sri Sai College of Dental Surgery

Department of Prosthodontics, Sri Sai College of Dental Surgery, Vikarabad, Telangana, India

Ravalika N Kothuri, Clean and Correct Dentistry

Researcher and Private Practitioner, Clean and Correct Dentistry, Hyderabad, Telangana, India

Tejasvi Daram, Partha Dental

Private Practitioner, Partha Dental, Hyderabad, Telangana, India

CITATION
DOI: 10.37983/IJDM.2022.4201
Published: 2022-04-22
How to Cite
Usharani, R., Kothuri, R. N., & Daram, T. (2022). Distinctive analysis of the shear bond strength of Porcelain Fused Metal substructure fabricated by conventional casting, direct metal Laser Sintering and CAD-CAM processing techniques: Shear bond strength of PFM Substructure fabricated by conventional casting, direct metal Laser Sintering and CAD-CAM Techniques. International Journal of Dental Materials, 4(2), 26-31. https://doi.org/10.37983/IJDM.2022.4201

References

  1. Galo R, Frizzas DG, Rodrigues RC, Ribeiro RF, de Mattos MD. Shear bond strength of dental ceramics to cast commercially pure titanium. Braz J Oral Sci 2010;9:362-5.
  2. Ferro P, Battaglia E, Capuzzi S, Berto F. Effects of different production technologies on mechanical and metallurgical properties of precious metal denture alloys. Open Eng. 2017;7(1):394-402. https://doi.org/10.1515/eng-2017-0043
  3. Daou EE. Bonding mechanism of porcelain to frameworks: Similarities and dissimilarities between metal and zirconia. J Adv Med 2016;2(5):1-3. https://doi.org/10.9734/BJMMR/2016/25369
  4. Nakka C, Kollipara S, Ravalika KN. Graftless solution for multiple unfavorably placed implants using dynamic abutment® solutions: A case report with a 3?year follow?up. J Ind Prosthodont Soc. 2020;20:331-4. https://doi.org/10.4103/jips.jips_362_19
  5. Kim HR, Jang SH, Kim YK, Son JS, Min BK, Kim KH, Kwon TY. Microstructures and mechanical properties of Co-Cr dental alloys fabricated by three CAD/CAM-based processing techniques. Materials. 2016;9(7):596. https://doi.org/10.3390/ma9070596
  6. Daou EE. Bonding mechanism of porcelain to frameworks: Similarities and dissimilarities between metal and zirconia. J Adv Med 2016;2(5):1-3. https://doi.org/10.9734/BJMMR/2016/25369
  7. Venkatesh KV, Nandini VV. Direct metal laser sintering: a digitised metal casting technology. J Ind Prosthodont Soc. 2013;13(4):389-392. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13191-013-0256-8
  8. Duda T, Raghavan LV. 3D metal printing technology. IFAC 2016;49(29):103-110. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ifacol.2016.11.111
  9. Chong MP, Beech DR. A simple shear test to evaluate the bond strength of ceramic fused to metal. Aust Dent J. 1980; 25:357-61. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1834-7819.1980.tb03895.x
  10. Pretti M, Hilgert E, Bottino MA, Avelar RP. Evaluation of the shear bond strength of the union between two CoCr-alloys and a dental ceramic. J Appl Oral Sci. 2004;12:280-4. https://doi.org/10.1590/S1678-77572004000400005
  11. Lombardo GH, Nishioka RS, Souza RO, Michida SM, Kojima AN, Mesquita AM, Buso L. Influence of surface treatment on the shear bond strength of ceramics fused to cobalt–chromium. J Prosthodont. 2010;19(2):103-111. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1532-849X.2009.00546.x
  12. Moslehifard E, Khosronejad N, Fahimipour F. Comparison of the effect of Nd: YAG laser and sandblasting on shear bond strength of a commercial Ni-Cr alloy to porcelain. Dent Mater J. 2016;5(3):114-119.
  13. Deepak K, Ahila SC, Muthukumar B, Vasanthkumar M. Comparative evaluation of effect of laser on shear bond strength of ceramic bonded with two base metal alloys: An in-vitro study. Ind. J Dent Res. 2013;24(5):610. https://doi.org/10.4103/0970-9290.123396
  14. Hammad IA, Talic YF. Designs of bond strength tests for metal-ceramic complexes: review of the literature. J Prosthet Dent. 1996;75(6):602-608. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0022-3913(96)90244-9
  15. Daftary F, Donovan T. Effect of four pretreatment techniques on porcelain-to-metal bond strength. J Prosthetic Dent. 1986;56(5):535-9. https://doi.org/10.1016/0022-3913(86)90416-6
  16. Malhotra ML, Maickel LB. Shear bond strength in porcelain-metal restorations. J Prosthet Dent. 1980;43(4):397-400. https://doi.org/10.1016/0022-3913(80)90208-5
  17. O'Connor RP, Caughman WF, Bemis C. Use of the split pontic nonrigid connector with the tilted molar abutment. J Prosthet Dent. 1986;56(2):249-251. https://doi.org/10.1016/0022-3913(86)90484-1
  18. Prasad NM, Nadgere JB, Ram SM. A comparative evaluation of shear bond strength of porcelain fused to metal substructure fabricated using conventional and contemporary techniques: An in vitro study. Int J Med. 2015;4(1):186-192. https://doi.org/10.5958/2319-5886.2015.00030.2
  19. Zhou Y, Li N, Yan J, Zeng Q. Comparative analysis of the microstructures and mechanical properties of Co-Cr dental alloys fabricated by different methods. J Prosthet Dent. 2018;120(4):617-623. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.prosdent.2017.11.015
  20. Xiang N, Xin XZ, Chen J, Wei B. Metal–ceramic bond strength of Co–Cr alloy fabricated by selective laser melting. J Dent. 202;40(6):453-457. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jdent.2012.02.006
  21. Serra-Prat J, Cano-Batalla J, Cabratosa-Termes J, Figueras-Àlvarez O. Adhesion of dental porcelain to cast, milled, and laser-sintered cobalt-chromium alloys: shear bond strength and sensitivity to thermocycling. J Prosthet Dent. 2014;112(3):600-605. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.prosdent.2014.01.004
  22. Shilpa P, Narendra R, Sesha Reddy SR. Shear Bond Strength of Ceramic Bonded to Different Core Materials and Their Pattern of Failure: An In Vitro Study. Cureus. 2019;11(11): e6242. https://doi.org/10.7759/cureus.6242