Premium
A Comparison of Two Silicoating Techniques
Author(s) -
Hummel Susan K.,
Pace Larry L.,
Marker Victoria A.
Publication year - 1994
Publication title -
journal of prosthodontics
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 0.902
H-Index - 60
eISSN - 1532-849X
pISSN - 1059-941X
DOI - 10.1111/j.1532-849x.1994.tb00137.x
Subject(s) - bond strength , materials science , composite material , dwell time , composite number , shear strength (soil) , amalgam (chemistry) , metal , metallurgy , layer (electronics) , adhesive , chemistry , geology , medicine , clinical psychology , electrode , soil science , soil water
Purpose A major challenge of composite‐coated metal restorations is creating a strong bond between the two materials. This study was conducted to compare the bond strengths between composite and metal alloys using two silicoating treatments; the Silicoater Classic and the Silicoater MD (Kulzer Inc. Irvine, CA). Materials and Methods The Classic uses a pyrolytically applied silica glass and the MD process is an oven sintering of a metal oxide silicate layer. Two types of specimens of three different alloys were cast (Deva4: 51Au38Pd, G‐Cast: 50Au32Ag12Cu [Degussa Corp, South Plainfield, NJ]; Ticonium: 70Ni15Cr [CMP Industries, Inc, Albany NY]). The specimens were silicoated with either the Classic or the MD process and opaque resin and composite (Dentacolor, Kulzer Inc) were bonded to each surface. A total of five control and 10 thermocycled (5,040 cycles, 0°C to 67°C; dwell time, 1 minute) specimens were fabricated for each alloy and specimen type. Two bond strength tests were used; a three‐point flexure test and a shear bond strength test. Data were analyzed using a multivariate analysis of variance (MANOVA) and a Tukey's multiple comparison test. Results The standard deviations of the shear bond strength values ranged from ± 2.30 to ± 17.62 kg; thus, there was no significant difference in these results. Bond strength ratios were calculated from the flexure strength data. After thermocycling, the Silicoater MD produced significantly higher (P < 0.05) bond strength ratio values compared with the Silicoater Classic for Deva‐4 (MD, 9.6 ± 1.5 v Classic, 4.7 ± 0.9) and G‐Cast (MD, 11.6 ± 1.2 v Classic, 3.9 ± 0.5) but lower values for Ticonium (MD, 4.5 ± 0.4 v Classic, 6.9 ± 0.9). Conclusion The Silicoater MD produced higher bond strength ratio values with noble alloys, and the Silicoater Classic produced higher bond strength ratio results when base metal alloys were used, suggesting a possible correlation between the effectiveness of the coating processes and the compositions of the alloys. These findings suggest that, for optimum results, selection of the type of silicoating process should be based on the components of the alloy.