Resistência à flexão de porcelanas feldspáticas convencionais processadas por injeção
Flexural strength of heat-pressing feldspathic porcelains
Oliva, Eduardo Andrade de; Chaves, Carolina de Andrade Lima; Medeiros, Flávia Regina Machado de; Cruz, Carlos Alberto dos Santos
Rev. odontol. UNESP, vol.38, n5, p.318-323, 2009
Resumo
O objetivo deste estudo foi investigar o efeito do processamento por injeção (método da cera perdida) na resistência à flexão, em três pontos, de porcelanas feldspáticas convencionalmente obtidas por sinterização. Foram avaliadas as porcelanas Ceramco-2, Duceragold, Duceram-Plus, Excelsior, Omega-900, Symbio, Vitadur-Alpha e VMK-95. Como controle, foi também utilizada a porcelana Cergogold, fornecida na forma de pastilhas pré-sinterizadas e processada exclusivamente por injeção. Corpos de prova em forma de barra (n = 10), com dimensões de 25 × 5 × 2 mm (ISO-6872), foram confeccionados em matrizes metálicas e processados, por sinterização ou injeção, nas temperaturas de cocção indicadas pelos fabricantes. Os ensaios foram realizados em equipamento MTS-810 (Material Test System, EUA), com célula de carga de 10 kN e velocidade de 0,5 mm.min–1. Os resultados, submetidos à análise de variância (p ≤ 0,05), mostraram que o processamento por injeção foi capaz de proporcionar maior resistência à flexão para as porcelanas Duceram-Plus, Excelsior, Omega-900, Symbio e VMK-95 (p < 0,001). Nessa mesma condição experimental, a porcelana Cergogold mostrou-se estatisticamente superior apenas à porcelana Vitadur-Alpha, sendo inferior à porcelana Omega-900 e semelhante às demais (p < 0,001). A resistência à flexão das porcelanas Ceramco-2, Duceragold e Vitadur-Alpha não foi influenciada pelo processo de obtenção (p < 0,001).
Palavras-chave
Porcelana dentária, métodos de processamento, resistência à flexão
Abstract
The aim of this study was to evaluate the effect of injection process, on the three-point flexural strength on feldspathic ceramic, fabricated by sintering technique. The ceramics evaluated were Duceragold, Duceram Plus, Excelsior, Omega 900, Symbio,Vitadur Alpha, VMK 95 and Ceramco 2. Cergogold, that the processing technique is based on a conventional injection moulding, was used for control. The bar-shaped specimens (n = 10) with the size of 25 × 5 × 2 mm (ISO-6872) were fabricated in a metal mould and processed by injection or sinterized, according to manufacturing specifications. The flexural test was performed in a MTS 810 testing machine (Material Test System, USA), with a 10 kN load cell and a crosshead speed of 0.05 mm.min–1. The data (MPa) were subjected to analysis of variance (p ≤ 0.05), and showed that the injection processed enhance the flexural strength of Duceram-Plus, Excelsior, Omega-900, Symbio and VMK-95 (p < 0.001). In this experimental condition, the ceramic Cergogold showed high value than Vitadur-Alpha, was inferior to the ceramic Omega-900, but there were no significant difference with the others (p < 0.001). The flexural strength was not influenced by the processing method for the ceramics Ceramco-2, Duceragold and Vitadur-Alpha.
Keywords
Dental ceramic, processed method, flexural strength
Referências
1. Cattell MJ, Clarke RL, Lynch, EJR. The biaxial flexural strength and reliability of four dental ceramics – part II. J Dent Res. 1997;25:409-14.
2. Rosemblum MA, Schulman A. A review of all-ceramic restorations. J Am Dent Assoc. 1997;128:298-307.
3. Chain NMC, Arcari GM, Lopes GC. Restaurações cerâmicas estéticas e próteses livres de metal. Rev Gaúcha Odontol. 2000;48:67-70.
4. Albakry M, Guazzato M, Swain MV. Biaxial flexural strength, elastic moduli, and x-ray diffraction characterization of three pressable all-ceramic materials. J Prosthet Dent. 2003;89:374-80.
5. Naeselius K, Arnelud CF, Molin MK. A 4-year retrospective study. Int J Prosthodont. 2008;21:40-4.
6. Zahran M, El-Mowafy O, Tam L, Watson PA, Finer Y. Fracture strength and fatigue resistance of all-ceramic molar crowns manufactured with CAD/CAM technology. J Prosthod.2008:1–8.
7. Seghi RR, Denry LL, Rosentiel SF. Relative flexural strength of dental restorative ceramics. Dent Mater. 1990;6:181-4.
8. Giordano R, Cima M, Pober R. Effect of surface finish on the flexural strength of feldspathic and aluminous dental ceramics. Int J Prosthodont. 1995;8:311-9.
9. Dong JK, Luthy H, Wohlwend A, Schärer P. Heat-pressed ceramics: technology and strength. Int J Prosthodont. 1992;5:9-16.
10. Höland, W, Schweiger, M, Frank, M, Rheinberger, V. A comparison of the microstructure and properties of the IPS-Empress 2 and the IPS-Empress glass-ceramics. J. Biomed. Mater Res. 2000;53;297-303.
11. McLean JW. Evolution of dental ceramics in the twentieth century. J Prosthet Dent. 2001;85:61-6.
12. Seghi RR, Sorensen JA. Relative flexural strength of six new ceramic materials. Int J Prosthodont. 1995;8:239-46.
13. Strub JR, Beschnidt SM. Flexure strength of 5 differentall- ceramic crown system. Int J Prosthodont. 1998;11;602-9.
14. Oilo G. Flexural strength and internal defects of some dental porcelains. Acta Odontol. Scand. 1998;46:313-22.
15. Campbell SD. A comparative strength study of metal ceramic and all-ceramic esthetic materials: Modulus of rupture. J Prosthet Dent. 1989;62:476-9.
16. Tinschert J, Zwez D, Marx R, Anusavice KJ. Structural reliability of alumina-, feldspar-, leucite-, mica- and zirconia-based ceramics. J Dent. 2000;28:529-35.
17. Zeng K, Odén A, Rowcliffe D. Evaluation of mechanical properties of dental ceramic core materials in combination with porcelains. Int J Prosthodont. 1998;11:183-9.
18. Rocha PVB. Avaliação in vitro da fenda e da infiltração marginal de restaurações inlays de cerâmicas puras [tese doutorado]. Bauru: Faculdade de Odontologia da USP; 1997.
19. Gorman CM, McDevitt EE, Hill RG. Comparison of two heat-pressed all-ceramic dental materials. Dent Mater. 2000;16:389-95.
20. Drummond JL, King TJ, Bapna MS, Kopers KRD. Mechanical property evaluation of pressable restorative ceramics. Dent Mater. 2000;16:226-33.
21. Kontonasaki E, Kantiranis N, Papadopoulou L, Chatzistavrou X, Kavouras P, Zorba T, et al. Microstructural characterization and comparative evaluation of physical, mechanical and biological properties of three ceramics for metal–ceramic restorations. Dent Mater. 2008;24:1362-73.
22. Medeiros FR, Chaves CAL, Schalch MV, Cruz CAS. Avaliação mecânica das cerâmicas IPS-Empres 2 e In- Ceram Zircônia. Cienc Odontol Bras. 2009;12:70-6.
23. Chen HY, Hickel R, Setcos JC, Kunzelmann KH. Effects of surface finish and fatigue testing on the fracture strength of CAD-CAM and pressed-ceramic crowns. J Prosthet Dent. 1999;82:468-75.
24. Curran DJ, Fleming TJ, Kawachi G, Ohtsuki C, Towler MR. Characterisation and mechanical testing of hydrothermally treated HA/ZrO(2) composites. J Mater Sci Mater Med. 2009;20:2235-41.
25. Bottino MA, Salazar-Marocho SM, Leite FP, Vásquez VC, Valandro LF. Flexural strength of glass-infiltrated zirconia/alumina-based ceramics and feldspathic veneering porcelains. J Prosthodont. 2009;18:417-20.
26. Myers, ML, Ergle, C, Fairhurst, CW, Ringle, RD. Fatigue failure parameters of IPS-Empress porcelain. Int J Prosthodont. 1994;7:549-53.
27. Blatz MB. Long-term clinical success of all-ceramic posterior restorations. Quintessence Int. 2002;33:415-26.
Facebook
Google+
Twitter
LinkedIn
Mendeley
StumbleUpon
CiteULike
Reddit
Email