1869 Surface Treatment Effects on Clinically-Prepared Y-TZP Zirconia Strength
N. ADATIA1, S.C. BAYNE1, L. COOPER1, and J.Y. THOMPSON2, 1University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, USA, 2University of Texas at San Antonio, USA

Introduction: Intraoral preparation of zirconia implant abutments creates deep surface defects making abutments susceptible to fracture during loading. 

Objective: Measure fracture strengths after preparation and after surface treatments to minimize or repair defects.

Methods: Seven groups (n=12/gp) of HIP-processed zirconia bars (Astra-Tech) were fabricated (20x2x2mm) to mimic prepable-abutment surface conditions and tested for surface flaw effects (3-point-flexure, Instron Model 4411, CHS= 0.1mm/min, age=2d, T=25°C, dry).  Control groups included no preparation (NP), dry preparation (DP, high-speed coarse diamond: Premier Two-Striper), wet preparation (WP), or wet preparation with 30d storage in water (WP+30d).  Subsequent mitigating treatments included (1) bonding films to fill surface defects (Optibold-Solo-Plus) (WP+B), (2) sandblasting (50 mm Al2O3) (WP+SB), or (3) polishing (low-speed Dialite burs) (WP+P).  Statistical analysis of results (ANOVA, p≤0.05, differences indicated by unshared letters) is reported below.

Specimen
Group:

Prep
Type:

Repair
Treatment:

Group
Goal:

3-Point-Flexure:
(MPa±sd)

 

 

NP

None

None

Control (un-prepped)

1634±95   

[a]

DP

Dry

None

Control (dry damage)

1144±109 

[b]

WP

Wet

None

Control (wet damage)

1442±89    

[c]

WP+30d

Wet

None (stored 30d)

Control (water effects)

1193±155  

[b,d]

WP+B

Wet

Optibond-Solo+

Repair defects

1218±77    

[b,e]

WP+SB

Wet

Sandblasted

Reduce large defects

1632±134  

[a,f]

WP+P

Wet

Polished

Remove large defects

1664±176

[a,g]

Results:  NP established the strength for pristine zirconia bars.  DP, WP, and WP+30d groups had significantly (p£0.05) reduced strengths (-30%, -12%, -27%).  DP generated damaging surface flaws. WP mitigated some surface damage.  WP+30d may have expanded existing surface cracks.  This effect deserves further investigation. WP+B was not effective in counteracting cracks by filling them.  WP+SB or WP+P repairs were equally effective in recovering to original strengths (p<0.001).  Both removed larger defects and mitigated preparation effects. 

Conclusions:  Polishing or sandblasting of prepable abutments produced 100% recovery from bur damage during preparation. 

Acknowledgments:  Supported by materials contributed by AstraTech and a 3M-ESPE grant.

Seq #214 - Ceramic Crowns, Core, Zirconia, Stress, Fracture
2:00 PM-3:00 PM, Saturday, 11 March 2006 Dolphin Hotel Pacific Hall
[ Poster ] Poster

Back to the Dental Materials: III - Ceramics and Cements Program
Back to the ADEA/AADR/CADR Meeting & Exhibition (March 8-11, 2006)

Top Level Search