Display options
Share it on

J Indian Prosthodont Soc. 2014 Dec;14(4):358-62. doi: 10.1007/s13191-013-0331-1. Epub 2013 Oct 19.

Evaluating the fracture toughness and flexural strength of pressable dental ceramics: an in vitro study.

Journal of Indian Prosthodontic Society

Ravi Gurram, C H Vamsi Krishna, K Mahendranadh Reddy, G V K Mohan Reddy, Y Mahadev Shastry

Affiliations

  1. Department of Prosthodontics, Sri Sai College of Dental Surgery, Kothrepally, Vikarabad, Hyderabad, 501101 India.

PMID: 25489158 PMCID: PMC4257931 DOI: 10.1007/s13191-013-0331-1

Abstract

The study was undertaken to evaluate the biaxial flexural strength, biaxial flexural strength after etching with 9 % HF acid and fracture toughness of three commonly used pressable all ceramic core materials. Ninety glass ceramic specimens were fabricated from three commercially available leucite based core ceramic material (1) Esthetic Empress, (2) Cergo, and (3) Performance Plus. Thirty discs of each material were divided into three groups of 10 discs each. Biaxial flexural strength (30 discs,) Biaxial flexural strength for samples treated with 9 % HF acid (30 discs) and fracture toughness (30 discs) were evaluated. Core material Performance Plus had the lowest biaxial strength of 124.89 MPa, Cergo had strength of 152.22 MPa and the highest value of 163.95 was reported for Esthetic Empress. For samples treated 9 % HF, Performance Plus had the lowest biaxial strength of 98.37 MPa, Cergo had strength of 117.42 MPa and the highest value of 143.74 was reported for Esthetic Empress. Core material Performance Plus had the lowest fracture toughness of 1.063 MPa, Cergo had strength of 1.112 MPa and the highest value of 1.225 was reported for Esthetic Empress. The results shows that Esthetic Empress had better mechanical properties compared to Cergo had Performance Plus in relation to the parameters tested.

Keywords: Biaxial flexural strength; Fracture toughness; Metal ceramics

References

  1. J Prosthet Dent. 1995 Aug;74(2):145-50 - PubMed
  2. Dent Mater. 2007 Jun;23(6):755-9 - PubMed
  3. J Dent. 2003 Mar;31(3):181-8 - PubMed
  4. Dent Mater. 2004 Mar;20(3):213-9 - PubMed
  5. Dent Mater. 2003 Nov;19(7):662-9 - PubMed
  6. J Prosthet Dent. 2003 Apr;89(4):374-80 - PubMed
  7. J Prosthet Dent. 1996 Aug;76(2):140-4 - PubMed
  8. Dent Mater. 2003 Dec;19(8):693-9 - PubMed
  9. Dent Mater. 2004 Jun;20(5):441-8 - PubMed
  10. J Prosthodont. 2008 Jul;17(5):415-9 - PubMed
  11. J Dent. 1997 Sep;25(5):399-407 - PubMed
  12. Dent Mater. 2000 Nov;16(6):389-95 - PubMed
  13. J Adhes Dent. 2000 Winter;2(4):305-13 - PubMed
  14. Int J Prosthodont. 1996 May-Jun;9(3):261-5 - PubMed
  15. J Prosthet Dent. 2007 Aug;98(2):120-8 - PubMed
  16. J Dent Res. 1990 Dec;69(12):1791-9 - PubMed

Publication Types