Dental Materials
Volume 24, Issue 1 , Pages 28-33, January 2008

The effect of surface modifications on titanium to enable titanium–porcelain bonding

  • Manoel G. Troia Jr.

      Affiliations

    • Department of Prosthodontics, Araras Dentistry School, Herminio Ometto University, Uniararas, Rua Ipiranga 1034/12, CEP: 13400-480 Piracicaba, SP, Brazil
    • Corresponding Author InformationCorresponding author. Tel.: +55 21 19 21065376; fax: +55 21 19 34332377.
  • ,
  • Guilherme E.P. Henriques

      Affiliations

    • Department of Prosthodontics, Piracicaba Dentistry School, Campinas State University, Unicamp, Brazil
  • ,
  • Marcelo F. Mesquita

      Affiliations

    • Department of Prosthodontics, Piracicaba Dentistry School, Campinas State University, Unicamp, Brazil
  • ,
  • Wagner S. Fragoso

      Affiliations

    • Department of Prosthodontics, Piracicaba Dentistry School, Campinas State University, Unicamp, Brazil

Received 20 February 2006; received in revised form 6 January 2007; accepted 11 January 2007.

Abstract 

Objectives

Titanium–ceramic restorations are currently used, despite the pending problem of titanium–ceramic bonding, which has only been partially solved. The surface treatment of the metal proposed by the manufacturer promotes lower bond strength between titanium and porcelain when compared to the conventional metal–ceramic systems. The objective of this study was to evaluate the influence of acid and caustic baths on the bonding characteristics of specific titanium porcelain bonded to cast commercially pure titanium (CP Ti).

Methods

Eighty strips of cast CP Ti were obtained in dimensions of 25mm×3mm×0.5mm, and divided into eight groups (n=10) which were subjected to surface treatment by immersion in one of the follow solutions—group HF: HF 10%; group NaOH+HF: NaOH 50%–CuSO4·5H2O 10% followed by HF 10%; group HCl: HCl 35%; group NaOH+HCl: NaOH 50%–CuSO4·5H2O 10% followed by HCl 35%; group HNO3: HNO3 35%–HF 5%; group NaOH+HNO3: NaOH 50%–CuSO4·5H2O 10% followed by HNO3 35%–HF 5%; control group: treated according to the manufacturer's instructions; NaOH+control group: treated according to the manufacturer's instructions followed by immersion in NaOH 50%–CuSO4·5H2O 10%. Low fusion porcelain (Vita Titankeramik) was applied to the center of one of the sides of each CP Ti sample with dimensions of 8mm×3mm×1mm. All groups were submitted to a three-point flexure test. Scanning electron microscopy (SEM) photomicrographs were taken to characterize the failed surfaces at the titanium–porcelain interface. Anova and Tukey's multiple comparison tests were used to analyze the data at a 5% probability level.

Results

All groups treated with NaOH 50%–CuSO4·5H2O 10% solution showed significant superior values when compared to groups treated exclusively with acid solution. There were no significant differences between HF (21.2MPa) and HCl (23.4MPa) groups; control (25.2MPa), HCl (23.4MPa) and HNO3 (26.6MPa) groups; NaOH+HF (29.9MPa) and NaOH+HCl (30.8MPa) groups; NaOH+HNO3 (34.8MPa) and NaOH+control (32.1MPa) groups. SEM analysis indicated a combination of cohesive and adhesive fractures in NaOH+HNO3 and NaOH+control groups, while mainly adhesive fractures were found in the other groups.

Significance

Bond strength between porcelain and cast CP Ti can be increased by use of a caustic bath prior to porcelain firing.

Keywords: Cast titanium, Ceramics, Bond strength

To access this article, please choose from the options below

Login to an existing account or Register a new account.

  • Purchase this article for 31.50 USD (You must login/register to purchase this article)

    Online access for 24 hours. The PDF version can be downloaded as your permanent record.

  • Subscribe to this title

    Get unlimited online access to this article and all other articles in this title 24/7 for one year.

  • Claim access now

    For current subscribers with Society Membership or Account Number.

  • Visit SciVerse ScienceDirect to see if you have access via your institution.
 

PII: S0109-5641(07)00043-7

doi:10.1016/j.dental.2007.01.009

Dental Materials
Volume 24, Issue 1 , Pages 28-33, January 2008