J Korean Acad Prosthodont.
2007 Oct;45(5):601-610.
Effects of titanium surface coating on ceramic adhesion
- Affiliations
-
- 1Department of Prosthodontics, College of Dentistry, Chonnam University, Korea. psw@chonnam.ac.kr
- 2Division of Materials Science and Engineering, Research Institute for Functional Surface, Chonnam National University, Korea.
Abstract
-
STATEMENT OF PROBLEM: The adhesion between titanium and ceramic is less optimal than conventional metal-ceramic bonding, due to reaction layer form on cast titanium surface during porcelain firing.
PURPOSE: This study characterized the effect of titanium-ceramic adhesion after gold and TiN coating on cast and wrought titanium substrates.
MATERIAL AND METHOD: Six groups of ASTM grade II commercially pure titanium and cast titanium specimens(13mm x 13mm x 1mm) were prepared(n=8). The conventional Au-Pd-In alloy served as the control. All specimens were sandblasted with 110micrometer Al2O3 particles and ultrasonically cleaned for 5min in deionized water, and dried in air before porcelain firing. An ultra-low-fusing dental porcelain(Vita Titankeramik) was fused on titanium surfaces. Porcelain was debonded by a biaxial flexure test at a cross head speed of 0.25mm/min. The excellent titanium-ceramic adherence was exhibited by the presence of a dentin porcelain layer on the specimen surface after the biaxial flexure test. Area fraction of adherent porcelain(AFAP) was determined by SEM/EDS. Numerical results were statistically analyzed by one-way ANOVA and Student- Newman-Keuls test at alpha=0.05.
RESULTS
The AFAP value of cast titanium was greatest in the group 2 with TiN coating, followed by group 1 with Au coating and the group 3 with Al2O3 sandblasting. Significant statistical difference was found between the group 1, 2 and the group 3 (p<.05). The AFAP value of wrought titanium was greatest in the group 5 with TiN coating, followed by the group 4 with Au coating and the group 6 with Al2O3 sandblasting.
CONCLUSION
No significant difference was observed among the three groups (p>.05). The AFAP values of the cast titanium and the wrought titanium were similar. However the group treated with Al2O3 sandblasting showed significantly lower value (p<.05).