Effects of airborne‐particle abrasion, sodium hydroxide anodization, and electrical discharge machining on porcelain adherence to cast commercially pure titanium

Abstract

The aim of this study was to determine the effect of airborne-particle abrasion (APA), sodium hydroxide anodization (SHA), and electrical discharge machining (EDM) on cast titanium surfaces and titanium-porcelain adhesion. Ninety titanium specimens were cast with pure titanium and the alpha-case layer was removed. Specimens were randomly divided into three groups. Ten specimens from each group were subjected to APA. SHA was applied to the second subgroups, and the remaining specimens were subjected to the EDM. For the control group, 10 specimens were cast using NiCr alloy and subjected to only APA. Surfaces were examined by using scanning electron microscope and a surface profilometer. Three titanium porcelains were fused on the titanium surfaces, whereas NiCr specimens were covered with conventional porcelain. Titanium-porcelain adhesion was characterized by a 3-point bending test. Statistical analysis showed that the porcelain-metal bond strength of the control group was higher than that of the titanium-porcelain system (p < 0.05). There were no significant differences between the bond strengths of titanium groups (p 0.05), except the bond strengths of Noritake Super Porcelain TI-22 groups on which APA and SHA were applied (p < 0.05). SHA and EDM as surface treatment did not improve titanium-porcelain adhesion when compared to APA.

Bonding between titanium and dental porcelain: A systematic review

“…The solution must be some kind of preparation of the titanium surface, enabling proper silica formation in the adherent titanium oxide. This has been demonstrated in studies that evaluated titanium surface alterations [23][24][25][26]29,[32][33][34][36][37][38][39][40][41][42][43] and also in studies that did not adopt the ISO standard methods, e.g. those of Sadeq et al [39], Oshida & Hashem [40], Wang and co-workers [41,42], Könönen & Kivilahti [43], Hanawa et al [44], Papadopoulos et al [45], and Cai et al [46].…”

“…There were nine studies dealing with differences in bond strength between conventional metal ceramics and titanium ceramics. Conventional metal ceramics have a higher bond strength [16][17][18][19][20][21][24][25][26], and there were only a few studies indicating that the bond strength between titanium and porcelain equaled that between conventional metal and porcelain [15,22,23] (Table I).…”

“…Other studies showed that the bond strength was improved by silanization of the titanium surface with Rocatec Ò [24,29], use of an intermediate metallic layer [32], use of different bonding agents [23,33], use of an intermediate ceramic layer [37], nitridation of the titanium surface [33], or roughening the surface using caustic baths [38], hydrochloric acid, or sandblasting [25,26,34,36] (Table III).…”

Effects of Wire EDM on the Microstructure of P/M Titanium Samples

“…It can be assumed that all of the titanium oxide that was found on the surface of the samples came from the large amount of β-phase titanium. Several studies emphasised that β-phase and its reaction to form a thick oxide layer compromised the bond and caused adhesive and cohesive fractures between titanium and dental ceramics (7,8,11,(25)(26)(27)(28)(29)(30)(31).…”

“…Several authors have proposed the use of the shear bond test for strength evaluation (20)(21)(22)(23). However, since the International Organization for Standardization (ISO) standard for metal ceramics advocates a three-point bending test, almost all recent studies have used this method to evaluate bond strength (24)(25)(26)(27)(28)(29)(30)(31). The three point bending test according to Schwickerath, described in the ISO 9693, requires metal samples with dimensions (25 ± 1) mm × (3 ± 0.1) mm × (0,5 ± 0.05) mm (24).…”