• Users Online: 1610
  • Home
  • Print this page
  • Email this page
Home About us Editorial board Ahead of print Current issue Search Archives Submit article Instructions Subscribe Contacts Login 
ORIGINAL ARTICLE
Year : 2019  |  Volume : 19  |  Issue : 4  |  Page : 362-368

Comparing two intraoral porcelain repair systems for shear bond strength in repaired cohesive and adhesive fractures, for porcelain-fused-to-metal restorations: An in vitro study


1 Department of Prosthodontics, Faculty of Dental Sciences, SGT University, Gurgaon, Haryana, India
2 Department of Prosthodontics, ITS Dental College, Greater Noida, Uttar Pradesh, India

Correspondence Address:
Dr. Jaiveer Singh Yadav
B - 61 Aakash Ganga Appartments, Plot - 17, Sectio-6, Dwarka, New Delhi
India
Login to access the Email id

Source of Support: None, Conflict of Interest: None


DOI: 10.4103/jips.jips_120_19

Rights and Permissions

Aim: The objective of research was to evaluate the shear bond strength of two commercially available intraoral porcelain repair systems, Clearfil repair system (Kuraray) and P and R repair system (Shofu) for repairing cohesive and adhesive fracture in metal-ceramic restorations. Settings and Design: In vivo – comparative study. Materials and Methods: Ninety samples of Nickel–Chromium metal discs were fabricated. Each disc was veneered with 2 mm thickness of ceramic material using custom made metal jig. Samples were divided into control (Group I n = 10) and two test groups (Group II n = 40 and Group III n = 40). Adhesive and cohesive fractures were created in test group samples, Group II (Ceramic substrate or cohesive defect) and Group III (metal substrate or adhesive defect). The samples of ceramic substrate (Group II) and metal substrate (Group III) were further subdivided into A and B containing 20 samples each according to the repair material used (A; Clearfil porcelain repair system and B; P and R porcelain repair system). All specimens were subjected to a standard shear load in the UTM until fracture occurred. Data were analyzed using one-way analysis of variance and post hoc Bonferroni test. Statistical Analysis used: One-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) and post hoc Bonferroni test. Results: Clearfil repair system showed significantly higher shear bond strength value (29.16 Mpa) as compared to P and R repair system (27.23 Mpa) for cohesive fractures. Whereas if compared for repairing adhesive fractures P and R repair system had significantly higher shear bond strength values (26.59 Mpa) than Clearfil repair system (25.74 Mpa). Conclusions: From the present study, it was be concluded that for cohesive fracture Clearfil repair system is a better material and for adhesive fractures P and R repair material gives better results.


[FULL TEXT] [PDF]*
Print this article     Email this article
 Next article
 Previous article
 Table of Contents

 Similar in PUBMED
   Search Pubmed for
   Search in Google Scholar for
 Related articles
 Citation Manager
 Access Statistics
 Reader Comments
 Email Alert *
 Add to My List *
 * Requires registration (Free)
 

 Article Access Statistics
    Viewed131    
    Printed2    
    Emailed0    
    PDF Downloaded38    
    Comments [Add]    

Recommend this journal