Sie sind auf Seite 1von 9

Australian Dental Journal

The official journal of the Australian Dental Association


Australian Dental Journal 2013; 58: 183–191
SCIENTIFIC ARTICLE
doi: 10.1111/adj.12065

Evaluation of air-particle abrasion of Y-TZP with different


particles using microstructural analysis

V Turp,* D Sen,* B Tuncelli,* G Goller,† M Ozcan‡
*Department of Prosthodontics, Faculty of Dentistry, Istanbul University, Istanbul, Turkey.
†Department of Metallurgical Materials and Engineering, Istanbul Technical University, Istanbul, Turkey.
‡Dental Materials Unit, Center for Dental and Oral Medicine, Clinic for Fixed and Removable Prosthodontics and Dental Materials Science,
University of Zurich, Zurich, Switzerland.

ABSTRACT
Background: This study evaluated the effect of air-particle abrasion with different particle sizes on the surface roughness
and phase transformation of yttria-stabilized tetragonal zirconia ceramics (Y-TZP).
Methods: Eighty-four Y-TZP discs of 15 mm diameter and 1.0 mm thickness were fabricated. The samples were divided
into four groups (n = 21): (1) air-particle abrasion with 30 lm CoJet sand blast coating agent (CoJet, 3M ESPE); (2)
50 lm Al2O3 particles; (3) 110 lm Al2O3 particles; and (4) 250 lm Al2O3 particles. Each group was further divided
into three subgroups each (n = 7) and treated for 5 seconds, 15 seconds and 30 seconds. Mean surface roughness was
determined using a profilometer. The surfaces were analysed with a scanning electron microscope. XRD analysis was
employed and the relative amount of the monoclinic phase was calculated. The results were statistically analysed by
two-way analysis of variance (ANOVA, p < 0.05).
Results: Air-particle abrasion with 250 lm Al2O3 particles for 30 seconds had the highest surface roughness (p < 0.001)
and a significantly higher amount of monoclinic phase compared to air-particle abrasion with 30 lm, 50 lm and
110 lm particles (p < 0.001).
Conclusions: Duration and particle size of air-particle abrasion affects the roughness and phase transformation of
Y-TZP. Longer treatment times with larger particles may result in degradation of material.
Keywords: Air-particle abrasion, Y-TZP, surface roughness, XRD analysis, profilometry.
Abbreviations and acronyms: FDP = fixed dental prosthesis; SEM = scanning electron microscope.
(Accepted for publication 23 September 2012.)

oxide and cerium oxide are added to zirconia to stabi-


INTRODUCTION
lize the tetragonal and/or cubic phases. Among all
The high aesthetic demands of patients and phases, tetragonal phase is metastable. Compared to
biocompatibility requirements have increased the use other dental ceramics, zirconia has superior mechanical
of all-ceramic systems in dentistry. A major problem properties due to the transformation toughening mech-
with all-ceramic systems is low fracture resistance. anism.4 When a sufficient quantity of the metastable
Yttria-stabilized tetragonal zirconia polycrystal tetragonal phase is present, then an applied stress, mag-
(hereon: zirconia) is employed as a framework materi- nified by the stress concentration at a crack tip, can
al for fixed dental prosthesis (FDP) in prosthodontics cause the tetragonal phase to convert to monoclinic.4
or as an implant material due to its high strength and This results in volume expansion. Phase transformation
toughness.1 Zirconia frameworks for FDPs are fabri- can then put the crack into compression, retarding its
cated using CAD/CAM systems as a standard routine.2 growth, and enhancing fracture toughness. This mecha-
Pure zirconia has a monoclinic crystal structure at nism is known as transformation toughening, and sig-
room temperature and transitions to tetragonal and nificantly extends the reliability and lifetime of
cubic phase at increasing temperatures.3 The volume products made with stabilized zirconia.3,4
expansion caused from cubic to tetragonal and tetrago- During laboratory or chairside procedures such as
nal to monoclinic phase transformation induces high grinding, polishing or surface conditioning with
stresses that may cause pure zirconia to crack upon abrasives, commonly performed by dental technicians
cooling from high temperatures. Several different oxi- and clinicians, internal stresses may cause phase
des such as magnesium oxide, yttrium oxide, calcium transformation in the material. Air-particle abrasion is
© 2013 Australian Dental Association 183
V Turp et al.

reported to be a requirement in order to achieve suffi- Three measurements were made with a travelling
cient adhesion between the adhesive resin cements and distance of 2 mm across the treated surface of the spec-
zirconia ceramics.5–8 Air-abrasion systems rely on the imens, and the mean value was calculated for each
deposition of different particle types and sizes ranging group. Three-dimensional images were captured using
between 30 lm to 250 lm.9,10 The abrasion process Wyko Vision 32® (New York, USA).
removes the uppermost contaminated loose layers and
the roughened surface provides some level of mechani-
X-ray diffraction and SEM analysis
cal retention with the adhesive resin cement.9,10 How-
ever, knowledge as to whether using large or small The relative amount of monoclinic phase of zirconia
particle size to increase resin bond to high-strength as a function of particle type and deposition duration
ceramics of different microstructures and chemical was calculated using X-ray diffraction analysis (X’pert
compositions is limited.11,12 To the authors’ best Pro PANalytical, Almelo, The Netherlands). The cal-
knowledge, the possible effect on transformation culations were based on Garvie and Nicholson’s
change as a function of deposition duration has not method, using the formula:13
been studied.
Xm ¼ ½Im ð111Þ þ Im ð111Þ=½Im ð111Þ þ Im ð111Þ
Therefore, the objectives of this study were to eval-
uate the effect of particle size and deposition duration þ It ð101Þ
of air-particle abrasion on the surface properties and where Xm is the mass fraction of monoclinic phase,
microstructure of zirconia. The null hypothesis tested Im(-111) is the intensity of monoclinic peak at 28.2°,
was that particle type and deposition duration would Im(111) is the intensity of monoclinic peak at 31.5°
not affect the surface morphology, roughness and and It(101) is the intensity of monoclinic peak at
phase transformation of zirconia. 30.2°.
Monoclinic phase volume percentage (Vm) was cal-
MATERIALS AND METHODS culated using Toraya et al.’s formula:14
Vm ¼ 1:311Xm =ð1 þ 0:311Xm Þ
Specimen preparation
where Vm is the monoclinic phase volume percentage
Zirconia discs (n = 84) (diameter 15 mm and thick- and Xm is the mass fraction of monoclinic phase.
ness 1 mm) were fabricated from non-HIPPED Cercon The surfaces of the 30-second treated specimens
blocks (Cercon, Degudent, Hanau, Germany). They were further evaluated using scanning electron micro-
were sintered to full density in a furnace, according to scope (SEM; JSM 7000F, JEOL, Japan) at x700 mag-
the manufacturer’s instructions, and polished under nification.
water to a final thickness of 1  0.13 mm with 320-,
400-, 600- and 1200-grit SiC papers (Struers, Ballerup,
Statistical analysis
Denmark) using a polishing machine (LaboPol-5, Stru-
ers, Ballerup, Denmark). Statistical analysis was performed using the software
Zirconia discs were then randomly divided into four Statistix 8.0 for Windows (Analytical Software Inc,
groups (n = 21). Specimens were subjected to air- Tallahassee, FL, USA). The surface roughness data
particle abrasion with (1) 30 lm SiO2 (CoJet, 3M (lm) and relative amount of the monoclinic phase
ESPE, Seefeld, Germany); (2) 50 lm Al2O3 particles were submitted to two-way analysis of variance (two-
(Korox, Bego, Bremen, Germany); (3) 110 lm Al2O3 way ANOVA) separately with the particle types (four
particles (Korox); and (4) 250 lm Al2O3 particles levels: 30 lm, 50 lm, 110 lm and 250 lm particles)
(Korox) for a duration of 5, 15 and 30 seconds (n = 7 and deposition durations (three levels: 5 seconds,
per subgroup) at 2 bar pressure from a distance of 15 seconds and 30 seconds) as independent variables.
approximately 10 mm (Easyblast, BEGO, Bremen, Multiple comparisons were made using Tukey’s test.
Germany). P-values less than 0.05 were considered to be statisti-
cally significant in all tests.
Surface roughness measurement
RESULTS
After air-abrasion protocols, surface roughness of zir-
conia specimens were measured using a 3-D optical Particle type (p < 0.001) and air-abrasion deposition
profilometer (Veeco NT1100, Veeco, New York, USA). duration (p < 0.001) had a significant effect on the
Non-contact, white-light vertical interferometer was surface roughness of zirconia. Interaction terms were
used to measure the roughness of the assessed profile also significant (p < 0.001).
(Ra) using the following parameters: magnification Except for the 30 lm SiO2 group, there was no sta-
5.12x; sampling 1.64 lm and array size 736 x 480. tistically significant difference in surface roughness
184 © 2013 Australian Dental Association
Air-particle abrasion effect on zirconia

between subgroups after 5 seconds of deposition. As traces of hard-machining were not completely removed
the deposition duration increased, the mean roughness even after 30 seconds (Fig. 2a–d). However, it can be
values increased significantly (p < 0.001) (Table 1). observed that grooves and valleys on the surface are
Air-particle abrasion with 30 lm SiO2 created signifi- flattened as the application duration increased.
cantly less surface roughness (0.57  0.04–0.69 SEM images indicated grooves and scratches after
 0.1 lm) than those of other particle types at all depo- 30 seconds of deposition with all particle sizes
sition durations (p < 0.001). There was no significant (Fig. 3a–d). Major qualitative differences were not
difference between 5 and 15 seconds of 30 lm SiO2 observed in SEM imagery and hard-machining traces
deposition (p > 0.001) but the 30 seconds subgroup were present in all groups.
created significantly higher roughness (p < 0.001).
The highest roughness was observed with 250 lm
DISCUSSION
Al2O3 particles after 30 seconds deposition (1.16
 0.2 lm) (p < 0.001). Zirconia ceramics seem to withstand high chewing
The highest relative amount of monoclinical phase forces but establishing adhesion of the luting cement
was observed with 250 lm Al2O3 particles after to this ceramic is a critical issue for their clinical suc-
30 seconds (16.43  0.33%) compared to the other cess.5,6,15–17 Although there is no specific cementation
groups (p < 0.001) (Table 2). Deposition duration of protocol supported by clinical evidence for zirconia
30 lm SiO2 did not affect the monoclinic phase signif- FDPs,7,18 the recommended approach is the use of
icantly (p > 0.001). For the 50 and 110 lm particles, resin cements in combination with surface treat-
30 seconds of deposition increased the monoclinic ments.19 Unfortunately, zirconia is affected by several
phase significantly compared to 5 and 15 seconds conditioning methods applied to its surface during
(p < 0.001). The XRD diagrams for each group are common stages of manufacturing and clinical adjust-
presented in Fig. 1a–d. Tetragonal and monoclinic ment of the restoration, such as hard-machining,
peaks can be observed in the diagrams. grinding and air-particle abrasion.20 Air-particle abra-
The 3-D profilometry images displayed an increase in sion has been reported to be a prerequisite for achiev-
surface roughness and surface irregularities with the ing sufficient bond strength between zirconia and
increase in the particle size and deposition duration but resin cement.6,8,21
Air-abrasion systems are typically based on deposi-
Table 1. Mean surface roughness (Ra, lm) and tion of particles ranging between 30 lm to 250 lm
standard deviations of zirconia specimens as a on the material’s surface under pressure.10,22 The
function of particle type and deposition duration increase in roughness also forms a larger surface
area for the retention of the resin cement. However,
5 seconds 15 seconds 30 seconds there is limited knowledge as to whether microme-
30 µm 0.57  0.04 A a 0.62  0.12 A a 0.69  0.11 B a chanical retention using large or small particle size
CoJet results in degradation of the mechanical properties
50 µm 0.80  0.13 A b 0.87  0.14 B b 0.94  0.18 C b
Al2O3
of zirconia.21 Therefore, this study was undertaken
110 µm 0.82  0.14 A b 0.91  0.21 B c 1.10  0.11 B c to evaluate the effect of particle size and deposition
Al2O3 duration of air-particle abrasion on the surface prop-
250 µm 0.83  0.16 A b 0.93  0.18 B c 1.16  0.18 C d
Al2O3
erties and microstructure of zirconia. Since the sur-
face roughness results and the relative amount of
Same superscript capital letters indicate no significant difference in monoclinical phase varied as a function of particle
the same row, and small letters in the same column (p < 0.05).
size and depostion duration, the null hypothesis
tested was rejected.
Air-particle abrasion is in fact a gentle conditioning
Table 2. Relative amount of monoclinical phase (%) process compared to other surface treatments.16 The
according to XRD measurements abrasion and heat produced by air-particle abrasion is
5 seconds 15 seconds 30 seconds considerably less compared to hard-machining and
grinding, and it has been reported in several studies
30 µm 8.91  0.23 A a 9.03  0.32 A a 9.11  0.15 A a
CoJet
that the strength of the material could even increase
50 µm 10.14  0.37 A b 11.23  0.12 A b 14.22  0.08 B b after the air-abrasion process.22,23 In this study, as the
Al2O3 particle size and application duration increased, the
110 µm 10.41  0.24 A b 11.52  0.31 A b 15.63  0.34 B c
Al2O3
significant increase in monoclinic phase was
250 µm 11.43  0.27 A c 13.44  0.32 B c 16.43  0.33 C d observed.20,23 This may result from an excess t-m
Al2O3 transformation on the surface of the specimens.
Same superscript capital letters indicate no significant difference in Hence, it can be anticipated that air-particle abrasion
the same row, and small letters in the same column (p < 0.05). may lose its positive effect due to an increase in
© 2013 Australian Dental Association 185
V Turp et al.

Fig. 1 XRD diagrams of zirconia specimens after deposition of (a) 30 lm SiO2; (b) 50 lm Al2O3; (c) 110 lm Al2O3; and (d) 250 lm Al2O3 for 5, 15
and 30 seconds. Note the differences in T and M peaks as the application duration changes.

186 © 2013 Australian Dental Association


Air-particle abrasion effect on zirconia

Fig. 1 Continued.

© 2013 Australian Dental Association 187


V Turp et al.

Fig. 2 3-D profilometry images of zirconia specimens after deposition of (a) 30 lm SiO2; (b) 50 lm Al2O3; (c) 110 lm Al2O3; and (d) 250 lm Al2O3
for 5, 15 and 30 seconds. Note that the hard-milling traces were not completely removed in all groups.

duration of application and particle size. In principle, coated with silica using the sol-gel technology. With
air-particle abrasion is used to clean and achieve all particle types, 5 seconds of deposition seem to cre-
micromechanical retention on the ceramic surface. ate the least damage on zirconia. Yet, considering the
However, the application duration or the particle size hard surface of zirconia, one can argue whether 5 sec-
may change depending on clinical objectives. For this onds would be sufficient to achieve a clean, microre-
reason, in this study 5, 15 and 30 seconds of deposi- tentive surface for sufficient adhesion. Also, the
tion was chosen. Among specimens treated for 5 sec- surface area of the restoration dictates the necessity
onds, the 30 lm SiO2 group showed statistically less for longer deposition duration. Nevertheless, as the
surface roughness and monoclinical phase compared duration increased, significant differences in surface
to those of 50, 110 and 250 lm Al2O3. The so-called roughness were observed depending on the particle
CoJet sand is basically ordinary alumina particles size. With the increase in particle size, surface
188 © 2013 Australian Dental Association
Air-particle abrasion effect on zirconia

Fig. 2 Continued

irregularities also increased, supported by profilometry phenomenon was attributed to tetragonal to monoclinic
images and measurements. However, a flattening of phase transformation on the zirconia surface, resulting
surface was observed in the topographic profilometry in grain push-out and therefore increased surface rough-
images while the surface roughness was increased. ness.11 Excessive tetragonal to monoclinic phase trans-
Based on this result, it can be speculated that formation may affect the mechanical properties of
although wide valleys and grooves are levelled by air- zirconia negatively and result in degradation.11 Kosmac
particle abrasion, roughness increases on smaller areas et al. observed zirconia layers after air-particle abrasion
where measurements are taken. with 110 lm particles. They reported the formation of a
The increase in monoclinic phase was parallel with thin compressive surface layer and surface cracks that
surface roughness measurements in all groups, being did not exceed this zirconia layer. The thickness of this
more prominent for 110 and 250 lm Al2O3. This layer was similar to the size of an average zirconia grain,
© 2013 Australian Dental Association 189
V Turp et al.

Fig. 3 SEM images (x700) of zirconia specimens after deposition of (a) 30 lm SiO2; (b) 50 lm Al2O3; (c) 110 lm Al2O3; and (d) 250 lm Al2O3 for
30 seconds. Note that the hard-milling traces were not completely removed in all groups.

and it even increased the strength of the material by ini- and preferably use particles with less sharp morpho-
tiating transformation when confronted with stress.20,23 logies. Further studies are recommended to investi-
Changes in the compressive surface layer may be impor- gate longer deposition durations of air-particle
tant as it may be affected by longer deposition durations. abrasion on microstructure and mechanical properties
The findings of this study support this phenomenon. of zirconia.
According to current information, the maximum
acceptable amount of monoclinic phase in zirconia is
CONCLUSIONS
25%.24,25 The amount of monoclinic phase after
250 lm Al2O3 particle deposition for 15 and 30 sec- The increase in particle size and deposition duration
onds (15.63% and 16.43%, respectively) did not during air-abrasion protocols enhanced the surface
exceed this limit. Also, SEM images verified that the roughness and monoclinic phase transformation of the
grooves and traces of hard-machining were not com- tested zirconia.
pletely removed after 30 seconds of air-particle abra-
sion, regardless of the grain size. In a previous study,
REFERENCES
it was reported that air-particle abrasion with 50 lm
Al2O3 increased the strength of zirconia by removing 1. Filser F, Kocher P, Weibel F, L€ uthy H, Sch€arer P, Gauckler LJ.
Reliability and strength of all-ceramic dental restorations fabri-
the weak grains and grinding traces, whereas 120 lm cated by direct ceramic machining (DCM). Int J Compt Dent
Al2O3 weakened this ceramic as the latter created 2001;4:89–106.
new surface flaws.26 Sato et al. used 125-lm silicium 2. Miyazaki T, Hotta Y, Kunii J, Fujiwara T. Current status and
carbide and 70-lm alumina Al2O3 for air-particle future prospects of a dental CAD/CAM system used in crown-
bridge restorations. Dent Jpn 2007;43:189–194.
abrasion and reported that biaxial flexural strength
3. Chevalier J. What future for zirconia as a biomaterial? Biomate-
of zirconia increased by the stress-induced transfor- rials 2006;27:535–543.
mation with high monoclinic phase content.27 How- 4. Piconi C, Maccauro G. Zirconia as a ceramic biomaterial.
ever, they also reported that the excess phase Biomaterials 1999;20:1–25.
transformation that took place after silicium carbide 5. Blatz MB, Sadan A, Kern M. Resin–ceramic bonding: a review
air-particle abrasion decreased biaxial flexural of the literature. J Prosthet Dent 2003;89:268–274.
strength.27 Therefore, future studies should not only €
6. Ozcan M, Vallittu PK. Effect of surface conditioning methods
report on the particle size used but also the deposi- on the bond strength of luting cement to ceramics. Dent Mater
2003;19:725–731.
tion duration, and pressure should be mentioned as €
7. Edelhoff D, Ozcan M. To what extent does the longevity of
it may relate to the formation of a better compres- fixed dental prostheses depend on the function of the cement?
sive layer. Clin Oral Implants Res 2007;18:193–204.
Until it is clinically proven whether air-abrasion €
8. Ozcan M, Kerkdijk S, Valandro LF. Comparison of resin
contributes to degradation of zirconia, clinicians cement adhesion to Y-TZP ceramic following manufacturers’
instructions of the cements only. Clin Oral Investig 2008;
should apply air-particle abrasion for short durations 12:279–282.

190 © 2013 Australian Dental Association


Air-particle abrasion effect on zirconia

9. Ozcan M, Pfeiffer P, Nergiz I. A brief history and current status €
21. Amaral R, Ozcan M, Bottino MA, Valandro LF. Microtensile
of metal/ceramic surface conditioning concepts for resin bond- bond strength of a resin cement to glass infiltrated zirconia-
ing in dentistry. Quintessence Int 1998;29:713–724. reinforced ceramic: the effect of surface conditioning. Dent

10. Ozcan M. Evaluation of alternative intraoral repair techniques Mater 2006;22:283–290.
for fractured ceramic-fused-to-metal restorations. J Oral Reha- 22. Denry IL, Holloway JA. Microstructural and crystallographic
bil 2003;30:194–203. surface changes after grinding zirconia-based dental ceramics.
11. Guazzato M, Quach L, Albakry M, Swain MV. Influence of J Biomed Mater Res Part B: Appl Biomater 2006;76:440–448.
surface and heat treatments on the flexural strength of Y-TZP 23. Kosmac T, Oblac C, Jevnikar P, Funduk N, Marion L. Strength
dental ceramics. J Dent 2005;33:9–18. and reliability of surface treated Y-TZP dental ceramics. J Bio-
12. Deville S, Chevalier J, Gremillard L. Influence of surface finish med Mater Res 2000;53:304–313.
and residual stresses on the ageing sensitivity of biomedical 24. ISO Standard 13356:2008. Implants for surgery – Ceramic
grade zirconia. Biomaterials 2006;27:2186–2192. materials based on yttria-stabilized tetragonal zirconia (Y-TZP).
13. Garvie RC, Nicholson PS. Phase analysis in zirconia systems. 25. Lughi V, Sergo V. Low temperature degradation -aging- of zir-
J Am Ceram Soc 1972;55:303–330. conia: a critical review of the relevant aspects in dentistry. Dent
14. Toraya H, Yoshimura M, S omiya S. Calibration curve for Mater 2010;26:807–820.
quantitative analysis of the monoclinic-tetragonal ZrO2 system 26. Wang H, Aboushelib MN, Feilzer AJ. Strength influencing vari-
by X-ray diffraction. J Am Ceram Soc 1984;67:119–121. ables on CAD/CAM zirconia frameworks. Dent Mater
15. Koutayas O, Vagkopoulou T, Pelekanos S, Koidis P, Strub JR. 2008;24:633–638.
Zirconia in dentistry. Part 2. Evidence-based clinical break- 27. Sato H, Yamada K, Pezzotti G, Nawa M, Ban S. Mechanical
through. Eur J Esthet Dent 2009;4:348–380. properties of dental zirconia ceramics changed with sandblast-
16. Aboushelib MN, Feilzer AJ, Kleverlaan CJ. Bonding to zirconia ing and heat treatment. Dent Mater J 2008;27:408–414.
using a new surface treatment. J Prosthodont 2010;19:340–346.
17. Bachhav VC, Aras MA. Zirconia-based fixed partial dentures: a Address for correspondence:
clinical review. Quintessence Int 2011;42:173–182.
Dr Volkan Turp
18. Cavalcanti AN, Foxton RM, Watson TF, Oliveira MT, Gian-
nini M, Marchi GM. Y-TZP ceramics: key concepts for clinical
Istanbul University
application. Oper Dent 2009;34:344–351. Faculty of Dentistry
19. Mizrahi B. The anterior all-ceramic crown: a rationale for the Department of Prosthodontics
choice of ceramic and cement. Br Dent J 2008;205:251–255. 34098 Fatih
20. Kosmac T, Oblak C, Jevnikar P, Funduk N, Marion L. The Istanbul
effect of surface grinding and sandblasting on flexural strength Turkey
and reliability of Y-TZP zirconia ceramic. Dent Mater
1999;15:426–433. Email: vturp@istanbul.edu.tr

© 2013 Australian Dental Association 191

Das könnte Ihnen auch gefallen