The effect of thermal cycling on the bond strength of low-fusing porcelain to commercially pure titanium and titanium–aluminium–vanadium alloy

Evaluation of interface characterization and adhesion of glass ceramics to commercially pure titanium and gold alloy after thermal- and mechanical-loading

“…Thermal cycling induces repeated stress at the metalceramic interface and weakens the bond between the two components [36,42,43]. Likewise, although not tested in their study, Tróia et al [28] suggested that periods of extended immersion time in each bath might produce higher tension at the metal-ceramic interface.…”

“…The reduction may be related to the solubility of different oxides and this process may be higher in ceramics designed for utilization with cpTi because of the presence of alkaline metallic oxides [35] that was also evident from the failure analysis of this study. Previous studies investigating the adhesion between metal and laboratory resin or metal and ceramics disclosed reduced adhesion after thermal cycling [3,12,25,28,37]. The study of Tróia Jr. et al [28] investigated the same thermal variation and metallic substrate (cpTi) but did not find any influence of thermal cycling on adhesion of ceramic onto this metal.…”

“…Previous studies investigating the adhesion between metal and laboratory resin or metal and ceramics disclosed reduced adhesion after thermal cycling [3,12,25,28,37]. The study of Tróia Jr. et al [28] investigated the same thermal variation and metallic substrate (cpTi) but did not find any influence of thermal cycling on adhesion of ceramic onto this metal. Probably, this factor would be more significant in more drastic conditions as those employed in the study of Shimoe et al [38] who performed extended thermal cycling (100.000 cycles) and observed a 30% reduction in mean bond strength.…”

“…However this layer, at the same time, could impair chemical reactions between the cpTi and the bonder ceramic components, weakening the cpTi-ceramic union. Moreover, oxide layer is often not adhered sufficient, present a porous form and therefore it has been previously shown that oxide layer itself or the interface between the oxide layer and the alloy was responsible for the metalceramic fractures [4,7,15,28]. In this study, a ceramic bonder corresponding to each ceramic material was used.…”

“…Several authors considered the shear test as the most adequate method to measure bond between the metal and ceramics [2,8,11,26,31,32]. However other authors [10,12,17,20,33,34] suggest the threepoint-flexure test, four-point-flexure test [28] or biaxial flexure test [1]. The shear test used was highly reliable, because it is based on minimal experimental variables and creates less residual stress at metal-ceramic interface, where the oblique forces are also minimized.…”