Porcelain chipping has been one of the main problems of porcelain-fused-to-zirconia restorations. This study evaluates the bond strengths of layered, pressed, and adhesively bonded porcelain to yttria-stabilized zirconia substrates that have undergone traditional preparation or gas-phase fluorination.
A three-point bending test was used to evaluate the bond strength of the porcelain and zirconia interface. Sixty-six specimens were prepared (n = 11) following ISO 9693 and loaded until failure using an Instron testing machine. One-half of the zirconia substrates received gas phase fluorination treatment before veneering application. Three porcelain veneering methods were evaluated: layered, pressed, and adhesively bonded porcelain. Bond strength results were interpreted using a two-way ANOVA and a Bonferroni multiple comparisons test. Statistical significance was set at α = 0.05.
ANOVA revealed a statistically significant effect of the veneering fabrication methods. No main effect was observed regarding the surface treatment to the zirconia. There was a significant effect related to the veneering method used to apply porcelain to zirconia. For untreated zirconia, layered porcelain had a significantly higher flexural strength compared to pressed or bonded, while pressed and bonded porcelains were not significantly different from one another. For zirconia specimens receiving fluorination treatment, both layered and pressed porcelains had significantly higher bond strengths than adhesively bonded porcelain. In addition, fluorinated pressed porcelain was not statistically different from the control layered or fluorinated layered porcelain.
The choice of veneering fabrication technique was critical when evaluating the zirconia to porcelain interfacial bond strength. Bonded porcelain to zirconia had a lower flexural strength than layered or pressed porcelain, regardless of zirconia surface treatment. In addition, fluorination had an effect on the bond strength of pressed porcelain.
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 07 September 2016.
All research outputs
#16,140,120
of 24,549,201 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Prosthodontics
#224
of 554 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#232,203
of 407,094 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Prosthodontics
#12
of 42 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,549,201 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 32nd percentile – i.e., 32% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 554 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.6. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 57% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 407,094 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 40th percentile – i.e., 40% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 42 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 69% of its contemporaries.
