Failure load and flexural strength of resin infused ceramic material

Abstract

PLEASE NOTE: This work is protected by copyright. Downloading is restricted to the BU community: please click Download and log in with a valid BU account to access. If you are the author of this work and would like to make it publicly available, please contact [email protected] (MSD) --Boston University, Henry M. Goldman School of Dental Medicine, 2011 (Department of Restorative Sciences and Biomaterials).Includes bibliographic references: leaves 85-88.Statement of the problem: Several high strength ceramics have been introduced for use as substructures for all-ceramic restorations. The strength of these materials is a very important factor for long term success. Resin infused ceramic (RIC) material may have the strength to be used in such substructures. Objectives: Examine the failure load of Resin Infused Ceramic (RIC) and compares it with three different ceramic substructures like Vita In-Ceram Alumina (ENC-AL), Vita In-Ceram Zirconia (ENC-ZR) and Vita Yttrium-Stabilized Zirconia (YZ). Examine the flexural strength of two different Resin Infused Ceramic (RIC) materials and compare them with other materials like Paradigm MZ 1OO, Vita Mark II, and Vita Triluxe. Materials and methods: Failure Load: The failure load of Resin infused Ceramic (RIC), Vita In-Ceram Alumina (ENC-AL), Vita In-Ceram Zirconia (ENC-ZR) and Vita Yttrium-Stabilized Zirconia (YZ) were tested. Five 3-unit posterior fixed partial denture (FPD) frameworks from each material were milled. The design of the FPD framework had connector sizes of 3x4 mm2 and abutment’s wall thicknesses of 0.3 mm axial and 0.5 mm occlusal. Specimens were bonded to acrylic dies with RelyX ARC resin cement. All tests were conducted with an axial load to failure on an Instron machine with a cross-head speed of 0.5 mm/min and a 10 kN Ioad cell. Flexural Strength: Flexural strength of 5 materials was evaluated. 3 Materials were supplied by different manufacturers (Paradigm MZ 1OO, Vitabloc Mak II, and Vitablocs Triluxe Forte) and 2 materials were fabricated at Boston University biomaterials laboratory (Resin Infused Ceramic RIC 940, and Resin infused Ceramic RIC 960). Bar specimens were made from each material with average dimensions of 14x2.4x2・5 mm. Bars were tested in an Instron machine with a cross-head speed of 0.5 mm/min and a 1kN load cell. Results Failure Load: The failure loads of the YZ (Zγ02) FPD frameworks, were larger than INC-AL (AL2O3), INC-ZR (ZrO2), and RIC respectively. INC-AL failure load was similar to YZ with no significant differences. Significant differences were noticed between INC-AL and INC-ZR. RIC material had significantly lower failure load values than all tested materials. Flexural Strength: Flexural strengths of the tested materials were MZ100 (166 MPs), RIC 940 (157 MPs), RIC 960 (148 MPs), Triluxe (120 MPs), and Mark II (119 MPs). MZ 100 was significantly higher than all materials except RTC 940. The RIC 940 and RIC 960 were significantly higher than ceramic materials Mark II and Triluxe. Conclusions: RIC had the lowest failure loads among the tested materials with significant differences. The flexural strength of the Resin Infused Ceramics (RIC 940 and RIC 960) was significantly higher than ceramic materials Mark II and Triluxe