d e n t a l m a t e r i a l s 2 3 ( 2 0 0 7 ) 630–636

available at www.sciencedirect.com

journal homepage: www.intl.elsevierhealth.com/journals/dema

Comparison of two bond strength testing methodologies

for bilayered all-ceramics

Mine Dündar a,∗ , Mutlu Özcan b , Bülent Gökçe a , Erhan Çömlekoğlu a ,

Fabiola Leite c , Luiz Felipe Valandro c
a Ege University, School of Dentistry, Department of Prosthodontics, Izmir, Turkey
b Research Associate, University Medical Center Groningen, University of Groningen, Department of Dentistry and Dental Hygiene,
Clinical Dental Biomaterials, Antonius Deusinglaan 1, 9713 AV, Groningen, The Netherlands
c São Paulo State University, Department of Dental Materials and Prosthodontics, São José dos Campos, Brazil

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: Objectives. This study compared the shear bond strength (SBS) and microtensile (MTBS) test-
Received 21 November 2005 ing methodologies for core and veneering ceramics in four types of all-ceramic systems.
Received in revised form Methods. Four different ceramic veneer/core combinations, three of which were feldspathic
12 March 2006 and the other a fluor–apatite to their respectively corresponding cores, namely leucite-
Accepted 25 May 2006 reinforced ceramic (IPS Empress, Ivoclar), low leucite-reinforced ceramic (Finesse, Ceramco),
glass-infiltrated alumina (In-Ceram Alumina, Vita) and lithium disilicate (IPS Empress 2,
Ivoclar) were used for SBS and MTBS tests. Ceramic cores (N = 40, n = 10/group for SBS
Keywords: test method, N = 5 blocks/group for MTBS test method) were fabricated according to the
All-ceramics manufacturers’ instructions (for SBS: thickness, 3 mm; diameter, 5 mm and for MTBS:
Bond strength 10 mm × 10 mm × 2 mm) and ultrasonically cleaned. The veneering ceramics (thickness:
Core–veneer ceramic 2 mm) were vibrated and condensed in stainless steel moulds and fired onto the core ceramic
Microtensile test materials. After trying the specimens in the mould for minor adjustments, they were again
Shear test ultrasonically cleaned and embedded in PMMA. The specimens were stored in distilled water
at 37 ◦ C for 1 week and bond strength tests were performed in universal testing machines
(cross-head speed: 1mm/min). The bond strengths (MPa ± S.D.) and modes of failures were
recorded.
Results. Significant difference between the two test methods and all-ceramic types were
observed (P < 0.05) (2-way ANOVA, Tukey’s test and Bonferroni). The mean SBS values for
veneering ceramic to lithium disilicate was significantly higher (41 ± 8 MPa) than those
to low leucite (28 ± 4 MPa), glass-infiltrated (26 ± 4 MPa) and leucite-reinforced (23 ± 3 MPa)
ceramics, while the mean MTBS for low leucite ceramic was significantly higher (15 ± 2 MPa)
than those of leucite (12 ± 2 MPa), glass-infiltrated (9 ± 1 MPa) and lithium disilicate ceramic
(9 ± 1 MPa) (ANOVA, P < 0.05).
Significance. Both the testing methodology and the differences in chemical compositions
of the core and veneering ceramics influenced the bond strength between the core and
veneering ceramic in bilayered all-ceramic systems.
© 2006 Academy of Dental Materials. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Corresponding author. Tel.: +31 50 3637593; fax: +31 50 3632696.

∗

E-mail addresses: minedundar@yahoo.com (M. Dündar), mutluozcan@hotmail.com (M. Özcan).

0109-5641/$ – see front matter © 2006 Academy of Dental Materials. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.dental.2006.05.004
 d e n t a l m a t e r i a l s 2 3 ( 2 0 0 7 ) 630–636
1. Introduction
All-ceramic restorations are preferred in clinical dental prac-
tice mainly because of their superior aesthetics, inertness
and biocompatibility when compared to their metal–ceramic
counterparts [1,2]. However, the inherent brittleness of
ceramic systems may lead to premature failure, especially
in repeated contact loading in moist environments [3]. Rein-
forced core ceramic materials are commonly used to deliver
more aesthetic ceramic restorations with weaker but more
translucent veneering ceramics. In order to overcome their
weakness and at the same time make them more aesthetic,
ceramic materials are applied to either metal substructures or
high strength ceramic cores and into or onto refractory casts.
Failure rates due to ceramic fractures have been reported to
range between 2.3 and 8% [4,5].
An all-ceramic system is expected to provide restorations
with sufficient mechanical strength that could resist occlusal
or chewing forces. Complete debonding of the veneering
ceramic from the core ceramic or adhesive failure between the
two is defined as delamination. Bilayered all-ceramic material
failures were reported to be observed either as delamination
of the veneering ceramic from the core ceramic or some-
times in the form of cracks on the core material itself [6–9].
The cause of fracture of veneering ceramic on ceramic core
materials was reported to be multifactorial in clinical prac-
tice such as lack of proper framework support, intraceramic
defects, mismatch between the thermal coefficients of the
veneering and core materials or simply occlusal instability
[2].
The strengthening mechanism in leucite-reinforced
ceramics is attributed to the higher percentage volume reduc-
tion of leucite particles compared to the surrounding glass
matrix upon cooling [10]. In glass-infiltrated high-alumina
ceramics, an aluminum oxide slip casting technique is used
to build the framework, which is then fired onto a porous
structure. The sintered alumina material is strengthened
by infiltration of the lanthanum glass, thereby minimizing
porosities [11]. Recently introduced lithia-based all-ceramic
systems are produced by the hot-pressing technique. Restora-
tions may be completed on a colour-matched die by the
application of stains and glazes (staining technique) or alter-
natively cut back and veneered with thermally compatible
ceramics before glazing. For this purpose, a fluor–apatite
veneering ceramic for lithium disilicate core ceramic has
been developed [12].
Table 1 – Types of core and veneering ceramics, batch numbers and manufacturing company names
Trade name Manufacturer
IPS
Empress core Ivoclar, Schaan, Liechtenstein
Veneer
Finesse core Ceramco, NJ, USA
Veneer
Inceram Al core Vita, Seefeld, Germany
Veneer
IPS
Empress 2 core Ivoclar, Schaan, Liechtenstein
Veneer
631
Data are present in literature regarding the bond strengths
of ceramics or resins to metal substrates in a range of
54–71 MPa and a sufficient bond for metal–ceramics has been
accepted when the fracture stress is greater than 25 MPa
[13–16]. It could be argued whether 25 MPa is sufficient since
this value often represents the limit of the test used rather
than true representation of adequacy. However, less infor-
mation is available on the bond strength values of new all-
ceramic core and veneering materials and there exists no
preferred accurate test method for obtaining information on
veneer/core adhesion in bilayered all-ceramic materials in
dentistry [17–19].
Material selection, ranking, performances and clinical rec-
ommendations on layered all-ceramics are based on routine
mechanical testing methodologies. The dental literature con-
sists overwhelming information based on either shear or
microtensile tests, leaving the clinician often in doubt on
material choice derived from the results of the two methodolo-
gies [20,21]. Information on the best combination of the rein-
forced core and veneering ceramic could assist the clinician
to predict possible chippings at the core-veneering ceramic
interface [22]. The determination of the bond strengths and
failure modes of some novel veneering ceramics to their core
materials might help to better estimate the durability of these
all-ceramic systems in clinical applications.
The objectives of this study were therefore to compare
the bond strength results obtained employing two commonly
used testing methodologies namely, shear bond strength (SBS)
and microtensile (MTBS) tests on the bond strengths of four
types of core and veneering ceramics and to evaluate the fail-
ure modes microscopically.
2. Materials and methods
2.1. Materials
Four types of all-ceramic materials with compositional and
microstructural differences were selected for the experiments.
Complete description of veneers as feldspathic glass and
fluoroapatite glass–ceramic and for core, lithium disilicate
ceramic are listed in Table 1.
Core/veneer combinations (N = 40, n = 10/group for SBS test
method, N = 5 blocks/group for MTBS test method) of each
ceramic system were fabricated by one experienced dental
technician according to the manufacturers’ instructions. The
procedures for specimen preparation are described below.
Composition Shade/Batch no.
Leucite glass–ceramic ETC 1/F42513
Feldspathic Transparent/609410
Low leucite glass–ceramic A2/090301
Feldspathic A1/99072319
Glass-infiltrated alumina +J0117HP2000-6407
Feldspathic 2R2.5/CH5043
Lithium disilicate 100/G14847
Fluor–apatite A1-S1/G0701G
632 d e n t a l m a t e r i a l s 2 3 ( 2 0 0 7 ) 630–636
2.2. Preparation of the core ceramics
The glass-infiltrated alumina core specimens (for SBS
tests: diameter, 5 mm; height, 3 mm, for MTBS-tests;
10 mm × 10 mm × 2 mm) were produced by compacting
aluminum-oxide powder in stainless steel moulds, followed
by sintering and glass-infiltration process. The glass–ceramic
cores were vacuum and injection moulded according to each
manufacturer’s instructions. All of the core materials were
ultrasonically cleaned (Quantrex 90, L&R Ultrasonics, Kearny,
NJ, USA) for 15 min in ethanol and deionized water and
air-dried.
2.3. Preparation of the core/veneer specimens
The individual veneering ceramics for each ceramic core were
condensed at a thickness of 2 mm, positioned on top of a plat-
inum foil and backed by a glass slide leading to specimens
with 5 mm in diameter and 5 mm in height for SBS and blocks
with 10 mm × 10 mm × 4 mm for MTBS tests. Ceramic powder
for dentine was mixed on a glass slab using the mixing liquid
as recommended by each manufacturer. The mould was care-
fully filled with the creamy mixture of ceramic and condensed.
Excess liquid was removed by applying a piece of adsorbing
paper (Kimwipes® Lite 200, Kimberly Clark Corp., Roswell, GA,
USA) onto the surface of the specimen. After condensation,
the mould was removed, leaving the non-sintered specimen
behind on the platinum foil. The test specimens on the plat-
inum foil were then transferred to a firing tray and sintered in a
calibrated ceramic furnace (Programat P90, Ivoclar, Liechten-
stein) in accordance with each manufacturer’s instructions.
Veneering ceramic was applied on the core ceramic in an
aluminum split mold. The mold allowed for fabrication of
five specimens at a time. Due to ceramic shrinkage, a total
of two separate firings were required to establish the cor-
rect diameter. Core was secured via screws in both sides of
split mold. Veneering ceramic was placed inside the mold and
as screws were loosened, two parts of mold were separated.
Specimen was then removed and veneer was fired. Following
the firing process, the specimens for the SBS test were tried
in the mould for minor adjustments, ultrasonically cleaned
as described above and embedded in auto-polymerized poly-
methylmethacrylate (PMMA) resin (Palapress, Vario, Heraeus
Kulzer, Wehrheim, Germany). For MTBS tests, the blocks were
positioned perpendicular in relation to the diamond disc.
Slices were obtained using a slow-speed diamond disc (no.:
34570) (Microdont, São Paulo, Brazil) under water cooling. The
peripheral slices (0.5 mm) were eliminated in case the results
could be influenced by rounded edges of the core/veneer inter-
faces by uncompensated shrinkage after the veneering pro-
cess. Thereafter, three sections (thickness: 1 ± 0.1 mm) were
achieved. Each section was rotated in 90◦ and fixed again to
the metallic base and three other sections were obtained. Nine
non-trimmed beam rectangular sps with an adhesive area of
approximately 1 mm2 and length of 8 mm were obtained from
each block. This methodology has been described in detail
elsewhere [23,24]. All groups of core/veneering ceramic com-
binations for both tests were kept in deioniszed grade 3 water
at 37 ◦ C for 1 week prior to testing.
2.4. Shear bond strength test
Specimens were mounted in a jig of the universal testing
machine (Autograph Model AG-50kNG, Shimadzu, Japan) and
the shear force was applied in a way that the edge of the shear-
ing jig was touching the core surface and was positioned as
close to the core/veneer ceramic interface as possible. The
specimens were loaded until fracture occurred at a crosshead
speed of 1 mm/min and the stress–strain curve was analyzed.
2.5. Microtensile bond strength test
The bar specimens were glued parallel to the long axis of an
adapted caliper using cyanoacrylate glue (Super Bonder Gel,
Loctite Ltd., São Paulo, Brazil) and attached to the universal
testing machine (EMIC DL-1000, EMIC, Sao Jose dos Pinhais,
Brazil). The specimens were then loaded in tension to failure
at a crosshead speed of 1 mm/min. The means from 45 sticks
for each block per group were obtained and modes of failures
were recorded.
2.6. Scanning electron microscopy
Complementary to the bond strength tests, failure modes were
examined at 65 to ×350 magnification under the scanning
electron microscope (SEM) (JEOL JSM-5200, Kyoto, Japan) at the
fracture site.
2.7. Statistical analysis
Statistical analysis was performed using SAS System for Win-
dows, release 8.02/2001 (Cary, NC, USA). The means of each
group were analyzed by 2-way analysis of variance (ANOVA),
Tukey’s test and Bonferroni post hoc tests to determine the sig-
nificant differences between test methodologies and ceramic
systems. P < 0.05 are considered to be statistically significant
in all tests. Multiple comparisons were made by repeated mea-
sures test at a significance level of 0.05.
3. Results
Significant differences both between the two test methodolo-
gies and all-ceramic types were observed (P < 0.05). Multiple
comparisons between ceramic types revealed significant dif-
ferences in bond strengths (P < 0.05). The mean SBS values
of veneering ceramic to core material in lithium disilicate
based ceramic system was significantly higher (41 ± 8 MPa)
(P < 0.05) than those of the low leucite-reinforced ceramic
(28 ± 4 MPa), glass-infiltrated alumina (26 ± 4 MPa) and leucite-
reinforced ceramic (23 ± 3 MPa) systems (Fig. 1). The mean
MTBS of veneering ceramic to low leucite was significantly
higher (15 ± 2 MPa) than those to leucite (12 ± 2 MPa), glass-
infiltrated (9 ± 1 MPa) and lithium disilicate ceramic (9 ± 1 MPa)
(P < 0.05). SBS test revealed significantly higher bond strength
values than MTBS tests (P < 0.05) (Fig. 1).
Categorization of the failure modes are presented in
Table 2. After SBS testing method, predominantly cohesive
failures in the core materials were observed in the glassy-
matrix ceramics (80, 90, 90%, for Finesse, IPS Empress and
 d e n t a l m a t e r i a l s 2 3 ( 2 0 0 7 ) 630–636 633

Fig. 1 – SBS and MTBS results for four types of core and
their corresponding veneering ceramics. Vertical lines
represent the standard deviations.

Table 2 – Incidence of failure types per experimental

group after debonding in percentage
Groups (SBS/MTBS) AF CF MF
IPS
Empress 10/0 90/0 0/100
Finesse 20/0 80/0 0/100
Inceram Al 80/0 20/0 0/100
IPS
Empress 2 10/0 90/0 0/100

Cohesive failures in the core materials (CF), adhesive at the

core–veneer interface without core damage (AF) and mixed types
of failures (MF).

IPS Empress 2, respectively) (Fig. 2a–c), while the failure mode

was mainly adhesive (80%) at the core–veneer interface for
glass-infiltrated alumina (In-Ceram) without core damage
(Fig. 2d). When the SEM images were evaluated, the cohesive
failures were observed often as partially delaminated surfaces
revealing no clear crack sites (Fig. 2a–c). Adhesive failures were
observed particularly in glass-infiltrated alumina/feldspathic
ceramic combinations with visible delamination sites at the
core/veneer interface (Fig. 2d). After MTBS testing method
however, all types of ceramics exhibited only mixed types of
failures (Fig. 3a and b).

4. Discussion

Shear test measurements have been reported as the most
prevalant in literature [25–27]. However, some researchers pre-
fer modified tensile tests to eliminate the occurrence of non-
uniform interfacial stresses [28,29]. The specific fracture pat-
tern in shear testing may cause cohesive failure in the sub-
strate which may lead to erroneous interpretation of the actual
data and taint an abolute ranking of the tested materials when
shear test is employed [27]. Nevertheless since the results from
tensile tests are reported to be greatly influenced by specimen
geometry and the occurrence of non-uniform stress distribu-
Fig. 2 – (a–d) Typical SEM views of the core/veneer
interfaces for (a) Finesse, (b) IPS Empress, (c) IPS Empress 2
and (d) In-Ceram after shear test. Note that the core
material failed cohesively in the core material ( ) in
Fig. 2a–c and adhesive failure was observed at the interface
without core damage (*) in Fig. 2d (original magnification
×350) (C: core and V: veneer).
634 d e n t a l m a t e r i a l s 2 3 ( 2 0 0 7 ) 630–636
Fig. 3 – (a) Representative images of the debonded surfaces
from an In-Ceram specimen with mixed failure type (♠)
after MTBS test. The arrow (→) indicates the cohesive
fractured surface where most probably the fracture started
from an air bubble leading to major cohesive failure of the
core ceramic and (b) the same group also presented partial
adhesive failure (*) (original magnification ×65).
tions during load application [30], MTBS or SBS testing alone,
might also not provide actual data to comment on the bond
strengths of materials.
In this study, confirming the findings of previous studies,
the SBS values of veneering ceramics to their core ceramics
ranged between 23 and 41 MPa [19,20]. Although the mean
SBS test results were higher than those of MTBS results,
high standard deviations were observed among core–veneer
ceramic combinations whereas with the MTBS, more homoge-
nous results were obtained indicating even distribution of
the stresses at the interface. Different core/veneer combi-
nations resulted in higher MTBS values in a previous study
(29–45 MPa) [19] than those in this present study (9–15 MPa).
However, the use of low to higher reinforced ceramics (leucite
reinforced, lithia based) in this study instead of consider-
ably high performance ceramics such as zirconium oxide with
mechanical strength and toughness comparable to stainless
steel [19] might be an explanation for the great differences
in MTBS values. Anusavice et al. [20] pointed out that in
metal–ceramic bond tests there exists no pure shear loading
at the substrate–ceramic interface. Stresses also exist along
the discontinuities at the ceramic termination points. Fur-
thermore, specimens contain residual thermal stresses at the
interface due to a mismatch of the thermal contraction coef-
ficients of the ceramic and the metal. When these facts are
considered for non-homogenous, layered all-ceramics, it can
be concluded that both test methods should be employed for
supplementary data on ceramic–ceramic bond strength. Basi-
cally, an adequate bond strength test for all-ceramic materials
has not been determined in reviewed literature.
The majority of clinically failed all-ceramic crowns have
been shown to fail from the internal surfaces, where the
highest tensile stresses and/or largest flaws existed [26]. The
results of this study suggested that bilayered ceramic spec-
imens exhibited complex failure modes. This has been pre-
viously attributed to several factors such as the thickness of
ceramic layers, direction, magnitude and frequency of applied
load, residual stresses induced by processing, as well as the
differences in thermal expansion coefficients of such ceram-
ics [2,3,31]. The use of a core ceramic to form an entire crown
is not a possible procedure due to its opaque appearance.
Therefore, building up the crown with the layering tech-
nique may introduce some of the above-mentioned factors
influencing the clinical performance of such materials. The
frequent adhesive failure observed at the interface of high-
alumina core and veneering ceramic in this study may be
partly due to large differences in the flexural strengths (felds-
pathic: 60–110 MPa, glass-infiltrated alumina: 400–600 MPa)
between the two ceramics as well as differences in their ther-
mal expansion coefficients (feldspathic porcelain used over
alumina-based core materials: 5.5 × 10−6 to 7.5 × 10−6 /◦ C, alu-
mina core: 6 × 10−6 to 6.2 × 10−6 /◦ C) [17]. The complex fail-
ure mode shifted from adhesive to cohesive in ceramics with
glassy matrix. The reason for this might be the better inte-
gration of the core/veneer layers in glassy matrix ceramics.
The voids and flaws can almost be completely filled with
the veneering ceramic, acting as a monolayer ceramic under
applied loads [18]. Another factor that may be more important
is any mismatch in the elastic moduli. Since there is not an
opaque layer between the two ceramics as in metal–ceramics,
the applied loads create stresses or direct the existing stresses
towards the core that in turn may lead to veneer and some-
times core cracks.
It was reported that the core/veneer ratio was the dominant
factor that controlled the failure initiation site in bilayered
ceramic disks with a relatively strong core and weak ceramic
veneer. The core/veneer ratio in this study was 3 mm/2 mm
and it was reported that as the core/veneer ratio increased,
the crack initiation sites shifted from the veneer to the core
[31]. Although the thickness of the core and veneering ceramic
materials was standard, cohesive failures of leucite ceramics
were clearly observed in the SEM images. Further research is
necessary to find out the effect of veneer thickness in cohesive
failures in all-ceramics.
Pretreatment of the core with the liners was tried with
the finding that it did not increase the veneer/core flexural
strength with smoother interfacial surfaces [19]. No signifi-
cant increase was observed in bond strength of core/veneer
ceramic interface after polishing. However, using a liner
between zirconium dioxide core and veneering ceramic was
reported to increase the MTBS. This finding contradicts with
that of Fleming et al. [32] who found an increased flexural
strength of veneered specimens for smoother interfacial
surfaces. Selenium based feldspathic porcelain liners are
used for masking the opaque colour of zirconium dioxide core
ceramics. Since in this study, core ceramics with glass-based
 d e n t a l m a t e r i a l s 2 3 ( 2 0 0 7 ) 630–636
or glass-infiltrated alumina were used that are considered
to be more aesthetic by the authors, no liner was applied at
the core/veneer interfaces in an attempt to increase their
adhesion.
The core/veneer adhesion is susceptible to chemical, ther-
mal and mechanical influences under intraoral conditions.
Therefore, at least the possible influence of water storage
in experimental studies must also be addressed. Fracture
strength tests of ceramics in water revealed lower values when
compared to the results from dry testing environment [31,33].
This is probably because of the subcritical growth of cracks
aided by the combined influence of water and stress. Ther-
mocycling therefore could have influenced the bond strength
values if it had been incorporated in the present study. On the
other hand, there exist contoversial reports on the effect of
thermocycling in literature [34].
The higher mean SBS values obtained in this study for all
core/veneer combinations compared to that of MTBS values
could be attributed to the fact that the latter requires speci-
men preparation where the sticks need to be sectioned that
could weaken the margins of individual specimen. This could
also initiate crack propagation from the margins. Consider-
ing the inherent brittle nature of ceramics in general, this
process might highly affect the vast differences between the
outcomes of the two methods tested. Based on the mean val-
ues obtained, relative ranking of the sytems altered with the
change in bond strength measurement technique. In assess-
ment of the findings of this study, failure type should also be
taken into consideration where major cohesive type of fail-
ure was experienced with the SBS test. It has been previously
stated that since SBS test method predominantly results in
cohesive failures, it could be considered fundamentally flawed
[35]. The reason for the higher SBS for Empress 2 is because
of the cohesive fracture of the base and merely reflects the
higher fracture resistance of IPS Empress 2 over IPS Empress and
Finesse cores than that of In-Ceram. Chemical alteration of
the glass layer adjacent to the core possibly changes the phys-
ical properties at the interface, such as strength and coeffi-
cient of thermal expansion and leads to cohesive failure types
in IPS Empress 2. Moreover, diffusion of elements of core and
veneering ceramic in IPS Empress 2 indicates strong covalent
and ionic bonds [36]. However, the weaker shear stress found
in In-Ceram Al between the core and veneer ceramic is most
probably due to the first (wash) firing process that forms a very
thin layer of dentin ceramic that shrinks considerably after
firing. Thus, when the interfacial stresses are created after
loading, the most affected site in terms of crack initiation and
propagation is the weaker dentin layer close to the core.
Since the clinically acceptable bond strength values are not
clear yet, for clinical practice, the failure type could also be
considered of high value information. This enables the clin-
ician foresee the possible failures in layered ceramics and
choose the corresponding repair options. The prelaminary
results of repairs of layered all-ceramics seem not to be sat-
isfactory yet [37]. Although the trends in the dental literature
focus on achieving the highest bond strength values, to our
opinion, further studies should not concentrate on the bond
strength values only but also the failure types.
Ceramic build up requires high technical skills. Porosi-
ties and large flaws are also responsible for failure, espe-
635
cially in crowns with reduced occlusal thickness. The thick-
ness of the core ceramic is also important and small vari-
ations can affect the strength of the restoration [18]. Some
clinical failures that are observed in the form of veneer-
ing ceramic cracks might be a result of these phenom-
ena. It has been suggested that thicker ceramic cores lead
to bulk fractures in veneer porcelains under fracture resis-
tance tests [31]. The core/veneer ratio in this study was
3 mm/2 mm and when nominal core ceramic thicknesses
(0.5–1 mm) in bilayered all-ceramic materials are considered
in dental restorations, this may not seem clinically relevant.
However, since the objective of this study was to observe the
adhesion behavior and the types of failure at the core–veneer
interfaces, the thickness of the core could be considered
negligible.
5. Conclusions
(1) Both the testing methodology and the core-veneering
ceramic composite types influenced the bond strength of
bilayered ceramic systems tested.
(2) While the mean MTBS values for low leucite ceramic
was significantly higher than those of other ceramics
tested (P < 0.05), the highest mean SBS value was obtained
from veneering ceramic to lithium disilicate and then, in
descending order from low leucite, glass-infiltrated and
leucite ceramics.
(3) MTBS testing method revealed more homogenous distri-
bution of data with lower mean values compared to SBS.
SBS demonstrated higher mean values with higher stan-
dard deviations also resulting in more cohesive failures of
the core ceramic.
Acknowledgements
We would like to acknowledge Bahadır Uyulgan, MSc. at
Dokuzeylül University, Faculty of Engineering, Department of
Metallurgical Engineering and Material Science for his assis-
tance during some parts of the mechanical tests and Prof. Dr.
Bilge Hakan Şen from Ege University, School of Dentistry for
SEM evaluations.
references
[1] Rosenblum MA, Schulman A. A review of all-ceramic
restorations. J Am Dent Assoc 1997;128:297–307.
[2] Kelly JR, Nishimura I, Campbell SD. Ceramics in dentistry:
historical roots and current perspectives. J Prosthet Dent
1996;75:18–32.
[3] Lawn BR. Fracture of brittle solids. 2nd ed. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press; 1993. p. 73–79.
[4] Libby G, Arcuri MR, La Velle WE, Hel L. Longevity of fixed
partial dentures. J Prosthet Dent 1997;78:127–31.
[5] Strub JR, Stiffler S, Scharer P. Causes of failure following oral
rehabilitation: biological versus technical factors.
Quintessence Int 1988;19:215–22.
[6] O’Brien WJ. Dental materials and their selection. 3rd ed.
Chicago: Quintessence; 2002. p. 200–209.
[7] Webber B, McDonald A, Knowles J. An in vitro study of the
compressive load at fracture of Procera AllCeram crowns
636 d e n t a l m a t e r i a l s 2 3 ( 2 0 0 7 ) 630–636
with varying thickness of veneer porcelain. J Prosthet Dent
2003;89:154–60.
[8] Harrington Z, McDonald A, Knowles J. An in vitro study to
investigate the load at fracture of Procera All Ceram crowns
with various thickness of occlusal veneer porcelain. Int J
Prosthodont 2003;16:54–8.
[9] Al-Dohan HM, Yaman P, Dennison JB, Razzoog ME, Lang BR.
Shear strength of core–veneer interface in bi-layered
ceramics. J Prosthet Dent 2004;91:349–55.
[10] Cattell MJ, Chadwick TC, Knowles JC, Clarke RL, Lynch E.
Flexural strength optimisation of a leucite reinforced glass
ceramic. Dent Mater 2001;17:21–33.
[11] Apholt W, Bindl A, Lüthy H, Mörmann WH. Flexural strength
of Cerec2 machined and jointed InCeram-Alumina and
InCeram-Zirconia bars. Dent Mater 2001;17:260–7.
[12] Oh S, Dong J, Lüthy H, Scharer P. Strength and
microstructure of IPS Empress2 glass–ceramic after different
treatments. Int J Prosthodont 2000;13:468–72.
[13] Haselton DR, Diaz-Arnold AM, Dunne Jr JT. Shear bond
strengths of 2 intraoral porcelain repair systems to porcelain
or metal substrates. J Prosthet Dent 2001;86:526–31.
[14] Coornaert J, Adriaens P, DeBoever J. Long-term clinical study
of porcelain-fused-to-gold restorations. J Prosthet Dent
1984;51:338–42.
[15] Özcan M, Niedermeier W. Clinical study on the reasons and
location of the failures of metal–ceramic restorations and
survival of repairs. Int J Prosthodont 2002;15:299–302.
[16] Özcan M. Evaluation of alternative intraoral repair
techniques for fractured ceramic-fused-to-metal
restorations. J Oral Rehabil 2003;30:194–203.
[17] Ironside JG, Swain MV. Ceramics in dental restorations—a
review and critical issues. J Aust Ceram Soc 1998;34:78–91.
[18] Chai J, Tkahashi Y, Sulaiman F, Chong K, Lautenschlager EP.
Probability of fracture of all-ceramic crowns. Int J
Prosthodont 2000;13:420–4.
[19] Aboushelib MN, Jager N, Kleverlaan CJ, Feilzer AJ.
Microtensile bond strength of different components of core
veneered all-ceramic restorations. Dent Mater
2005;21:984–91.
[20] Anusavice KJ, Dehoff PH, Fairhurst CW. Comparative
evaluation of ceramic-metal bond tests using finite element
stress analysis. J Dent Res 1980;59:608–13.
[21] Filho MA, Vieira CCL, Araujo E, Junior MS. Effect of different
ceramic surface treatments on resin microtensile bond
strength. J Prosthodont 2004;13:28–35.
[22] Dündar M, Özcan M, Comlekoglu E, Gungor MA, Artunc C.
Bond strengths of veneering ceramics to reinforced ceramic
core materials. Int J Prosthodont 2005;18:71–2.
[23] Bottino MA, Valandro LF, Scotti R, Buso L. Effect of surface
treatments on the resin bond to zirconium-based ceramic.
Int J Prosthodont 2005;18:60–5.
[24] Amaral R, Özcan M, Bottino MA, Valandro LF. Microtensile
bond strength of a resin cement to glass infiltrated
zirconia-reinforced ceramic: the effect of surface
conditioning. Dent Mater 2006;22:283–90.
[25] Özcan M, Vallittu PK. Effect of surface conditioning methods
on the bond strength of luting cement to ceramics. Dent
Mater 2003;19:725–31.
[26] Fairhurst CW, Lockwood PE, Ringle RD, Twiggs SW. Fatigue
parameters of a model feldspathic porcelain. J Dent Res
1993;72:175 (Abstract 573).
[27] Özcan M. Adhesion of resin composites to biomaterials in
dentistry: an evaluation of surface conditioning methods.
The Netherlands: Groningen; 2003. p. 143–144.
[28] El Zohairy AA, De Gee AJ, Mohsen MM, Feilzer AJ.
Microtensile bond strength testing of luting cements to
prefabricated CAD/CAM ceramic and composite blocks. Dent
Mater 2003;19:575–83.
[29] Cardoso PE, Sadek FT, Goracci C, Ferrari M. Adhesion testing
with the microtensile method: effects of dental substrate
and adhesive system on bond strength measurements. J
Adhes Dent 2002;4:291–7.
[30] Azer SS, Drummond JL, Campbell SD, Zaki AEM. Influence of
core buildup material on the fatigue strength of an
all-ceramic crown. J Prosthet Dent 2001;86:624–31.
[31] Wakabayashi N, Anusavice KJ. Crack initiation modes in
bilayered alumina/porcelain disks as a function of
core/veneer thickness ratio and supporting substrate
stiffness. J Dent Res 2000;79:1398–404.
[32] Fleming GJ, El-Lakwah SF, Harris JJ, Marquis PM. The
influence of interfacial surface roughness on bilayered
ceramic specimen performance. Dent Mater 2004;20:142–9.
[33] Sobrinho LC, Cattell MJ, Glover RH, Knowles JC. Investigation
of the dry and wet fatigue properties of three all-ceramic
crown systems. Int J Prosthodont 1998;11:255–62.
[34] Özcan M, Pfeiffer P, Nergiz İ. A brief history and current
status of metal/ceramic surface conditioning concepts for
resin bonding in dentistry. Quintessence Int 1998;29:713–24.
[35] van Noort, Noroozi S, Howard IJ, Cardew G. A critique of
bond strength measurements. J Dent 1989;17:61–7.
[36] Smith TB, Kelly JR, Tesk JA. In vitro fracture behavior of
ceramic and metal–ceramic restorations. J Prosthodont
1994;3:138–44.
[37] Özcan M, Valandro LF, Youssef G. Effect of repair modalities
for a core–veneer all ceramic combination. J Dent Res
2006;85 (Abstract# 564).