Effect of Pressure and Particle Size During Aluminum Oxide Air Abrasion on the Flexural Strength of Disperse-Filled Composite and Polymer-Infiltrated Ceramic Network Materials.
CAD/CAM polymers
Weibull analysis
air abrasion
dental restoration
disperse-filled composite
flexural strength
polymer-infiltrated ceramic network
Journal
Polymers
ISSN: 2073-4360
Titre abrégé: Polymers (Basel)
Pays: Switzerland
ID NLM: 101545357
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
22 Jun 2020
22 Jun 2020
Historique:
received:
26
05
2020
revised:
12
06
2020
accepted:
19
06
2020
entrez:
26
6
2020
pubmed:
26
6
2020
medline:
26
6
2020
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
Esthetic dental computer-aided design/computer-aided manufacturing (CAD/CAM) polymers such as disperse-filled composites (DFC) and polymer-infiltrated ceramic networks (PICN) should be subjected to surface treatment before bonding. However, such treatment can lead to defect formation and a decrease in strength. Therefore, in this study, we compared the flexural strengths of DFC and PICN materials air-abraded with alumina particles of different sizes at different pressures. In addition to Weibull analysis, the samples (untreated and treated) were characterized by scanning electron microscopy and atomic force microscopy. Both DFC and PICN exhibited the lowest flexural strength at large particle sizes and high pressures. Therefore, we optimized the air abrasion parameters to maintain the flexural strength and significantly increase surface roughness. In the case of DFC, the optimal particle size and pressure conditions were 50 µm at 2 bar and 110 µm at 1 bar, while for PICN, the best performance was obtained using Al
Identifiants
pubmed: 32580368
pii: polym12061396
doi: 10.3390/polym12061396
pmc: PMC7362000
pii:
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Subventions
Organisme : Ministry of Trade, Industry and Energy
ID : 10077361
Références
J Dent Res. 2007 Aug;86(8):749-53
pubmed: 17652204
Dent Mater. 2010 Feb;26(2):e11-6
pubmed: 20018362
Dent Mater. 2014 May;30(5):564-9
pubmed: 24656471
Dent Mater J. 2007 Nov;26(6):820-6
pubmed: 18203487
Int J Prosthodont. 2006 Sep-Oct;19(5):442-8
pubmed: 17323721
J Am Dent Assoc. 2006 Sep;137(9):1289-96
pubmed: 16946436
J Prosthodont. 2019 Feb;28(2):e496-e503
pubmed: 29323782
Dent Mater. 2014 Mar;30(3):334-42
pubmed: 24418627
Dent Mater. 2019 Oct;35(10):1439-1449
pubmed: 31399228
Dent Mater. 2011 Feb;27(2):e28-42
pubmed: 21056462
Dent Mater. 2016 May;32(5):607-14
pubmed: 26935018
Dent Mater. 2019 Jan;35(1):169-175
pubmed: 30502226
J Dent Res. 2014 Jan;93(1):62-7
pubmed: 24186559
Clin Oral Investig. 2018 Nov;22(8):2787-2797
pubmed: 29404810
J Mech Behav Biomed Mater. 2020 Feb;102:103522
pubmed: 31877525
J Prosthodont. 2018 Jun;27(5):421-428
pubmed: 29143397
Dent Mater. 2013 May;29(5):535-41
pubmed: 23522657
Dent Mater. 2017 Mar;33(3):e124-e135
pubmed: 28057347
Dent Mater. 2011 Apr;27(4):394-406
pubmed: 21185074
Dent Mater. 2016 Nov;32(11):e275-e283
pubmed: 27639808
Odontology. 2017 Apr;105(2):254-256
pubmed: 27848100
Dent Mater J. 2013;32(3):492-501
pubmed: 23719013
J Esthet Restor Dent. 2014 Nov-Dec;26(6):382-93
pubmed: 24754327
J Appl Oral Sci. 2020 Feb 07;28:e20190371
pubmed: 32049135
Oper Dent. 2016 Mar-Apr;41(2):171-8
pubmed: 26266652
J Appl Oral Sci. 2015 Nov-Dec;23(6):629-36
pubmed: 26814465
Dent Mater. 2012 Nov;28(11):1191-7
pubmed: 22999373
Odontology. 2019 Jul;107(3):360-367
pubmed: 30610399
Dent Mater J. 2017 Jul 26;36(4):454-460
pubmed: 28420832
Dent Mater J. 2016;35(1):21-8
pubmed: 26830821
J Biomed Mater Res. 2000;53(4):304-13
pubmed: 10898871
J Prosthet Dent. 2019 May;121(5):866.e1-866.e8
pubmed: 31036253
J Mech Behav Biomed Mater. 2013 Apr;20:113-25
pubmed: 23455168