Effect of zirconia surface treatments on the shear bond strength of veneering ceramic

Hong-Joo Kim, DDS, MSD,a Hyun-Pil Lim, DDS, MSD, PhD,b Yeong-Joon Park, DDS, MSD, PhD,c and Mong-Sook Vang, DDS, MSD, PhDd School of Dentistry, Chonnam National University, Gwang-Ju, Korea
Statement of problem. Various surface treatments of zirconia have been recommended for veneering ceramics. However, it has not been determined which of these treatments produces the highest bond strength. Purpose. This study examined the effects of various surface treatments on the shear bond strength of zirconia and veneering ceramic. Material and methods. Square-shaped (5 x 10 x 10 mm) zirconia (Everest) specimens were divided into 4 groups (n=8) according to surface treatment as follows: group C, grinding with #320 diamond disc (control); group A, airborne-particle abrasion with 110 m Al2O3; group L, application of liner (Cerabien); and group AL, airborne-particle abrasion with 110 m Al2O3 and application of liner. A cylinder of veneering ceramic (2.4 mm in diameter and 3 mm in height) (Cerabien) was fabricated and fired on the zirconia specimens. The shear bond strength was tested using a universal testing machine. The data were analyzed statistically using a 1-way ANOVA and Tukeys multiple comparisons test (=.05). The interface and fractured surfaces of the specimens were also evaluated by field emission scanning electron microscopy (FE-SEM). Results. The mean and SD values for the shear bond strength of the groups ranged from 27.87 3.59 MPa (for group L) to 36.63 2.96 MPa (for group A). The 1-way ANOVA revealed a significant difference between groups (P=.001). The airborne-particle abrasion group showed significantly higher bond strength than liner applied groups (L, AL) (P<.05). The SEM revealed that liner-applied groups (L, AL) showed primarily adhesive failure. Complete delamination and microspaces were also observed in the liner-applied groups. Conclusions. The mean in vitro shear bond strength of veneering ceramic on zirconia treated with airborne-particle abrasion was significantly higher than that subjected to liner-applied treatments. (J Prosthet Dent 2011;105:315-322)

Clinical Implications

This study demonstrated that application of a liner increased the possibility of interfacial failure of veneering ceramic at the zirconia core, and that airborne-particle abrasion may be more useful for increasing bond strength than liner application.
Zirconia-based materials are used as the core for crowns and for fixed dental prostheses (FDPs) in restorative dentistry, due to their superior esthetics, biocompatibility, and mea

chanical properties. However, clinical failures (chipping and/or delamination of veneering ceramic) of veneered yttria-stabilized tetragonal zirconia polycrystal (Y-TZP) frameworks were

reported in 13.0% and 15.2% of patients after 3 and 5 years, respectively.1-3 In contrast, failure rates of metal ceramic FDPs were between 8% and 10% after 10 years.4,5 Other

Graduate Student, Department of Prosthodontics. Full Time Lecturer, Department of Prosthodontics. c Professor, Department of Dental Materials. d Professor, Department of Prosthodontics.
b

Kim et al

316
studies showed the failure rate of metal ceramic FDPs to be between 2.7% and 5.5% during a longer observation period of 10 to 15 years.6,7 An adequate bond for metal ceramic restorations occurs when the fracture stress is greater than 25 MPa.8 The shear strength of veneering ceramics intended for use with zirconia ranged from 21.9 to 31.0 MPa.9 Based on these data, metal frameworks veneered with ceramics still represent the standard for ceramic FDPs. Sufficient bond strength is a concern for the long-term clinical success of zirconia restorations,10 and many studies have addressed the associated high failure rate of zirconia-veneering ceramics.9-19 Various zirconia core materials are available commercially. Their fabrication procedures are different even though they share a similar chemical structure. Thus, each manufacturer recommends various surface treatments.13 According to Fischer et al,10,15 bond strength is determined by a range of factors, including chemical bonds, mechanical interlocking, type and concentration of defects at the interface, wetting properties, and the degree of compressive stress in the veneering layer. All of these factors influence zirconia core materials.20-22 A previous study reported that surface treatments of zirconia, such as airborne-particle abrasion or the application of a liner, had a significant effect on bond strength.12,13 Airborne-particle abrasion, an important treatment procedure for achieving strong adhesion of veneering ceramics, works by increasing surface roughness and providing undercuts.16 However, some reports indicate that bonding between veneering ceramics and zirconia might be based on chemical bonds.10 According to the Smith et al investigation of the core-veneer interface,23 chemical alterations in the veneering glass were apparently limited to less than a 2- to 3-m thick layer. Liners can be applied as an intermediate layer between the zirconia substrate and the veneering ceramic to mask the framework and increase the wetting properties of the zirconia surface. Fischer et al10,15 suggested that airborne-particle abrasion was not a necessary surface pretreatment to enhance bond strength. One study showed that liner-applied zirconia specimens had higher bond strength than specimens prepared with other surface treatments.11 However, there are also reports that liner application can weaken bond strength.15,19 As previously mentioned, the primary factors behind the bonding mechanism between zirconia and veneering ceramic are unclear. There are limited clinical studies on the success and failure of zirconia and veneering ceramics. However, many manufacturers recommend a surface treatment, such as airborne-particle abrasion or liner application. Therefore, further studies on these surface treatments are needed to improve bond strength. The purpose of this study was to test the shear bond strength of veneering ceramic to zirconia core after surface treatments. The null hypothesis was that the shear bond strength of veneering ceramic with non-treated zirconia would not be different from that of veneering ceramic with surfacetreated zirconia.

Volume 105 Issue 5

Bluff, Ill). A total of 32 square-shaped (5 x 10 x 10 mm) zirconia specimens were created by consecutively polishing with #320, 600, 800, and 1200 diamond discs (Diamond plated tools; Shinil Diamond Industrial Co, IksanSi, Korea) while watercooling.11 All specimens were ground on one side with a #320 diamond disc to produce a condition similar to that of milled zirconia. The grinding procedure was performed with a grinding machine (LaboPol-25; Struers A/S, Ballerup, Denmark) at a speed of 500 rpm. The surface roughness of the milled zirconia was measured at 3 different locations using a calibrated 3-dimensional (3-D) surface profiler (NV-E1000; Nano System Co, Ltd, Daejeon, Korea) and software (NanoMap; Nano System Co, Ltd) to obtain the arithmetic mean deviation of the assessed profile (Ra) and maximum profile height (Rz). The surface roughness of the milled zirconia (Ra: 213.58 2.46 nm, Rz: 5.31 0.16 m) was similar to that of the surface ground using a #320 diamond disc (Ra:256.25 4.76 nm, Rz: 5.92 0.28 m). Specimens were divided into 4 groups containing 8 specimens each (n=8). Different surface treatments were applied to the top surface of the specimens in each group. In Group C, which was ground with a #320 diamond disc, no further treatment was applied to the ceramic surface; this group was used as the control. The A and AL groups were airborneparticle abraded with 110 m alumina (Al2O3) particles (Cobra; Renfert GmbH, Hilzingen, Germany) under a pressure of 0.4 MPa for 10 seconds at a direction perpendicular to the surface and a distance of 10 mm using an airborne-particle abrasion device (Basic master; Renfert GmbH, Hilzingen, Germany).18 Before veneering, all zirconia specimens were cleaned in ultrasonic baths containing acetone, alcohol, and distilled water for 10 minutes each. A liner (Cerabien ZR shade base; Noritake, Nagoya, Japan) was applied to the L and AL groups using a brush to create an even layer. Speci-

MATERIAL AND METHODS

This study measured the shear bond strength between veneering ceramic and zirconia specimens treated with various methods: grinding, airborne-particle abrasion, application of liner, and application of liner after airborne-particle abrasion. The zirconia-veneering ceramic interface and fractured surface were also assessed. Y-TZP zirconia blocks (Kavo Everest ZS blank; KaVo Dental GmbH, Bismarckring, Germany) were used. Sintering was performed at 1450 C in a furnace (Kavo Everest therm; KaVo Dental GmbH) according to the cycle recommended by the manufacturer. Dense sintered blocks were sectioned using a machine-mounted diamond wheel (IsoMet 4000; Buehler, Lake

The Journal of Prosthetic Dentistry

Kim et al

May 2011

317

Table I. Firing schedules of veneering ceramics

Pre-drying Ceramics
Cerabien ZR shade base Cerabien ZR body

Temperature (C)
600

Time (min)
5

Heating Rate (C/min)

45

Firing Temperature (C)

930

Holding Time (min)

1

600

7 to 10

45

930 to 940

1 Schematic diagram of specimen size and test design. A,B, Final dimension of veneering porcelain cylinder 2.4 mm in diameter and 3 mm in height. Veneering porcelain applied to prepared face of each cube using custom-made separable silicone mold. C, Specimen seated in shear-testing device with semicircular knife edge. D, Separated veneering porcelain from zirconia following shear test. mens were then sintered according to the manufacturers recommendations (Table I). On the prepared surface of each cube, a veneering porcelain cylinder (Cerabien ZR body; Noritake) was applied using a custom-made separable silicone mold (Examixfine; GC Co, Tokyo, Japan) (Fig. 1A, B). Porcelain powder, mixed with the appropriate amount of distilled water, was added to 3.0 mm in diameter and 3.8 mm in height. Excess liquid was removed with tissue paper. Firing was performed in a calibrated porcelain furnace (Esgaia, J. Morita Mfg Corp, Kyoto, Japan) according to the manufacturers recommendations (Table I). After firing, the final dimension of the veneering porcelain cylinder was 2.4 mm in diameter and 3 mm in height. After porcelain firing, each specimen was placed in a shear-testing device with a semicircular knife edge. The shear bond strength was determined using a screw-driven universal testing machine (Model 4302; Instron, Norwood, Mass) at a crosshead speed of 0.5 mm/min (Fig. 1C, 1D).14 The shear bond strength was calculated using the following formula: shear bond strength (MPa) = load (N)/area (mm2). Specimens presenting a typical pattern among the groups were selected for observation of the fractured surface. To observe the interface between zirconia and veneering ceramic, new specimens were fabricated using the same surface treatments. Ceramic was added onto new zirconia specimens and embedded in epoxy resin (Epoxicure NC Epoxy Resin & Hardener; Buehler). Specimens were sectioned and polished with a diamond wheel and grinding machine (LaboPol-25; Struers Co), ground in sequence on one side with #320, 600, 800, and 1200 diamond discs in the same manner, and coated with platinum using a sputter-coating technique. The zirconia-porcelain interface and fractured surface were observed by field emission scanning electron microscopy (FE-SEM) (S-4700; Hitachi High Tech Instruments Co, Ltd, Tokyo, Japan). Secondary electron imaging was performed using FE-SEM at an accelerating voltage of 15 kV to investigate surface geometry. These observations were used to assess the mechanisms of failure as well as the nature of the interface between the treated surfaces and the veneering ceramic.24 Mean and standard deviation (SD) values of the shear bond strength (n=8) were analyzed statistically using a 1-way analysis of variance test (ANOVA). Tukeys multiple comparisons test was used to assess the difference among groups (=.05). All statistical analyses were performed using the statistical software (SPSS Version 18.0; SPSS Inc, Chicago, Ill).

RESULTS
The mean and SD values of the shear bond strengths for the groups ranged from 27.87 3.59 MPa (for group L) to 36.63 2.96 MPa (for group A) (Fig. 2). The 1-way ANOVA analysis showed a significant dif-

Kim et al

318
45

Volume 105 Issue 5

Shear Bond Strength (MPa)

40 35 30 25 20 15 10 5 0 Control 32.08

36.63 30.51 27.87

AL

Surface Treatment (groups) 2 Mean shear bond strength of surface treated groups and control group.

Table II. Results of Tukeys multiple comparisons for shear bond strengths
Mean Difference (I-J)
4.550 4.204 1.566 4.550 8.754 6.116 4.204 8.754 2.638 1.566 6.116 2.638

95% Confidence Interval SE

1.892 1.892 1.892 1.892 1.892 1.892 1.892 1.892 1.892 1.892 1.892 1.892

(I) Group
C (control)

(J) Group
A L AL

P
.099 .142 .841 .099 <.001 .016 .142 <.001 .513 .841 .016 .513

Lower Bound
9.715 .961 3.598 .615 3.589 .952 9.368 13.918 7.802 6.731 11.281 2.527

Upper Bound
.615 9.368 6.731 9.715 13.918 11.281 .961 3.589 2.527 3.598 .952 7.802

C L AL

C A AL

AL

C A L

SE represents standard error P values less than .05 represent significant differences.

ference in the shear bond strengths between groups (F = 7.538, df = 3, P<.001). Tukeys multiple comparisons test results are listed in Table II. Group A, which was airborne-particle abraded with 110 m alumina particles, showed a significantly higher bond strength than the liner applied groups (L, P<.001; AL, P=.016). The SEM images of zirconia-

veneering ceramic sectioned areas showed many defects and pores in the ceramic area (Fig. 3). The interfacial image of the core and veneering ceramic showed a roughened surface in airborne-particle abraded specimens (Fig. 3B, 3D). There was no distinguishable lining layer in liner-applied specimens (Fig. 3C, 3D). Higher magnification of all specimens revealed

compositional differences across the interface between the core and the veneer (Fig. 4). In all specimens, fracture began at the zirconia-ceramic interface and proceeded into the veneering ceramic. All groups showed a combination of cohesive and adhesive fracture modes (Fig. 5). However, the liner-applied groups (L, AL) showed primarily adhesive failure. Complete

The Journal of Prosthetic Dentistry

Kim et al

May 2011

319

3 Sectioned surface morphology of zirconia and veneering ceramic interface: A, Control; B, A (airborne-particle abrasion); C, L (liner application); D, AL (airborne-particle abrasion and liner application). SEM images of zirconiaveneering ceramic sectioned areas showed many defects and pores in ceramic area. Interfacial image of core and veneering ceramic showed roughened surface in airborne-particle abrasion specimens (B, D) and no distinguished lining layer in liner-applied specimens (C, D). (x200 magnification)

4 Zirconia and ceramic interface showing fusion of crystal structures: A, Control; B, A (airborne-particle abrasion); C, L (liner application); D, AL (airborne-particle abrasion and liner application). Higher magnification of specimens showed compositional differences across core and veneer interface. (x50000 magnification)

Kim et al

320

Volume 105 Issue 5

5 Fractured surface morphology showing combined fracture modes; cohesive in veneering ceramic and adhesive at interface: A, Control; B, A (airborne-particle abrasion); C, L (liner application); D, AL (airborne-particle abrasion and liner application). (arrows represent delamination of veneering ceramics). In all specimens, fractures began at zirconia-ceramic interface and proceeded into veneering ceramic. All groups showed combined cohesive and adhesive fracture modes; however, liner-applied groups (L, AL) showed primarily adhesive failure. Complete delamination and microspaces were present in liner groups. (x50 magnification). delamination and microspaces were observed in the liner-applied groups as well (Fig. 5C, 5D). resulting from the framework design and bonding failure between ceramic and core. Therefore, one or more surface treatment is typically used to enhance the bond strength, which is determined by multiple factors. Authors of a previous study reported that surface treatment of zirconia, such as airborne-particle abrasion or the application of a liner, had a significant effect on bond strength.12,13 However, the primary factors of the bonding mechanism between zirconia and veneering ceramic have not been demonstrated. In this study, veneering ceramic pores and defects identified in the SEM images of the sectioned areas might be the primary reason for bonding failure between the zirconia and veneering ceramic when they exist at the interface (Fig. 3). Airborne-particle abrasion can increase the contact area with the veneering ceramic, which would decrease the failure tendency. SEM observations of the sectioned areas revealed compositional differences across the interface between the core and the veneer (Fig. 4). It is believed that core and veneer materials fuse together and some elements from each material diffuse across the interface. This concept was explained by Smith et al23 and Al-Dohan et al.14 Either of these occurrences can cause a chemical alteration of the glass layer adjacent to the core, possibly by altering the physical properties, such as strength or coefficient of thermal expansion at the interface. However, the precise bonding mechanism between zirconia and veneering ceramic has not yet been identified. The shear bond strength measured in this study ranged from 27.87 to 36.63 MPa (Fig. 2). An adequate bond for metal ceramic restorations occurs when the fracture stress is greater

DISCUSSION
This study demonstrated that airborne-particle abrasion resulted in significantly higher bond strength than liner application. Therefore, the data support rejection of the null hypothesis, as there was a difference among groups with different surface treatments. The results suggested that airborne-particle abrasion is more useful for increasing bond strength of veneering ceramic than liner application. Clinically, most of the failure in zirconia-veneering ceramic crowns occurs at the interface. The failure patterns include delamination and chipping.1,3 The reasons for failure of veneering ceramics are existence and thickness of unsupported ceramic

The Journal of Prosthetic Dentistry

Kim et al

May 2011
than 25 MPa.8 The shear strength of those veneering ceramics intended for use on zirconia ranged from 21.9 to 31.0 MPa.9 All groups in this study showed a higher mean strength than was recommended. There are several methods to measure bond strength. According to Guess et al,17 however, the method applied to metal ceramic systems cannot be used in bi-layered ceramic materials due to brittleness. In addition, the standardized test method or bond strength minimally required in ceramic materials has not been determined. The method used to measure the shear bond strength in this study, also used by Al-Dohan et al,14 is one of the currently acceptable methods to measure shear bond strength of enamel and dentin adhesives (Fig. 1). However, development of a stricter standardized method is necessary to obtain clinically valuable data.14 According to Aboushelib et al,11-13 the microtensile bond strength test is a reliable assessment technique and Guess et al17 confirmed that the Schmitz-Schulmeyer test was reliable due to minimal experimental variables. Although testing can be performed with a crown-shaped framework to reproduce the clinical situation,24 standardizing the various testing designs and variables encountered under clinical conditions, including thickness of zirconia and veneering ceramic, luting agent, direction, location, and type of applied load is difficult. According to the FE-SEM observations (Fig. 3B, 3D), airborne-particle abrasion increased surface roughness and contact surface area; thus, it was concluded that airborne-particle abrasion could diminish the percentage of interfacial failure of zirconia and veneering ceramic. In contrast, the application of a liner decreased the shear bond strength compared to airborne-particle abrasion. The difference between the airborne-particle abrasion group and liner groups was significant (P<.05) (Table II). Delamination is the primary reason for decreased shear bond strength in the liner applied groups (L, AL). The SD of liner applied groups was greater than that of control group (C) and showed that application of a liner was a sensitive technique. The chemical composition of the liner (Cerabien ZR shade base; Noritake, Nagoya, Japan) used in this study was SiO2 (70.7%), Al2O3 (11.5%), CaO (0.6%), MgO (0.5%), K2O (6.8%), Na2CO3 (7.4%), Li2CO3 (0.3%), and B2O3 (0.8%). Composition of liners varies depending on the manufacturer, but the primary component is SiO2, indicating a similar composition to veneering ceramic. The liner material is used to mask the white color of zirconia and improve the wetting property of the zirconia core. However, examination of the fractured surface of the core-veneer interface by FE-SEM established that the liner-applied groups (L, AL) demonstrated primarily adhesive failure. In the liner-applied groups, complete delamination and microspaces were also observed (Fig. 5). According to Aboushelib et al,12,13 application of various types of liners affects bond strength and failure patterns. Liner-applied groups demonstrated primarily interfacial failure patterns in these studies. Delamination can be the result of a weak veneer ceramic or a weak bond between the core and the veneer.12 According to Tinschert et al,19 the application of a liner is recommended for layering veneers. However, if used with pressable veneer ceramics, it can significantly weaken the bond strength and increase the likelihood of interfacial failure and delamination of the veneer ceramic from the intact zirconia core. In this study, the zirconia surfacetreated groups did not show a significant difference compared to the control group (Table II). It was assumed that zirconia-veneering ceramic bonding is not only influenced by surface treatments, but also by other factors, such as type and concentration of defects at the interface, wetting properties, and the degree of compressive stress in the veneering layer. It is uncertain whether the bonding nature between the liner (or porcelain) and zirconia is mechanical or chemical. In the energy dispersive x-ray analysis (EDX) of the interface between zirconia and porcelain, porcelain components, such as silica, sodium, aluminum, and potassium diffused to the zirconia layer. The diffusing depth of porcelain components decreased to 8 to 10 m.12 These results demonstrated the chemical bonding between the 2 structures. In another study, mechanical surface treatment did not reveal a difference compared to the control. Therefore, in porcelain firing, chemical bonding is the major bonding factor.10 According to Fisher et al,15 compressive stress reinforces the veneering ceramic, an effect more pronounced near the interface. The coefficients of thermal expansion for the core and veneering ceramic must closely match to achieve strong interfacial bond strength. A slightly higher coefficient (0.5 x 10-6K-1) for the core material causes the veneering ceramic to be in a beneficial state of residual compressive stress.8 In this study, the coefficient of thermal expansion of Y-TZP (Kavo Everest) (10.48 x 10-6K-1) was slightly higher than that of the veneering ceramic (Cerabien ZR body and shade base) (9.1 x 10-6K-1). It was assumed that the effect of compressive stress due to thermal expansion is more powerful than that of surface treatments. Significant differences were found between airborne-particle abrasion groups and liner applied groups. These differences demonstrated that airborne-particle abrasion resulted in significantly higher bond strength than that of the liner application; therefore, airborne-particle abrasion will be more useful for surface treatment of the zirconia core than the liner application. In this study, the dimension of the specimens was not similar to the framework of zirconia ceramic crowns. Different fracture patterns of zirconia ceramic crowns depend on the occlusal force and contact position of opposing teeth in clinical situations. As such, the speci-

321

Kim et al

322
mens in this study cannot fully reflect the clinical situation. In addition, the porcelain layering procedure was performed with 1 to 2 repetitions of layering and firing. In conventional laboratory procedures, repeated layering and firing processes are generally performed. The contraction and expansion that occurs with these repeated procedures result in variable bonding strength. These differences between the experimental design and clinical situations represent study limitations.
3. Raigrodski A, Chiche G, Potiket N, Hochstedler J, Mohamed S, Billiot S, et al. The efficacy of posterior three-unit zirconiumoxide-based ceramic fixed partial dental prostheses: A prospective clinical pilot study. J Prosthet Dent 2006;96:237-44. 4. Creugers NH, Kyser A, vant Hof MA. A meta-analysis of durability data on conventional fixed bridges. Commun Dent Oral Epidemiol 1994;22:448-52. 5. Scurria MS, Bader JD, Shugars DA. Metaanalysis of fixed partial denture survival: prostheses and abutments. J Prosthet Dent 1998;79:459-64. 6. Coornaert J, Adriaens P, De Boever J. Long-term clinical study of porcelainfused-to-gold restorations. J Prosthet Dent 1984;51:338-42. 7. Valderhaug J. A 15-year clinical evaluation of fixed prosthodontics. Acta Odontol Scand 1991;49:35-40. 8. Craig RG, Powers JM, Wataha JC. Dental materials: properties and manipulation. 8th ed. St. Louis: Mosby; 2004:578-580. 9. Fischer J, Stawarzcyk B, Trottmann A, Hammerle CH. Impact of thermal misfit on shear strength of veneering ceramic/zirconia composites. Dent Mater 2009;25:419-23. 10.Fischer J, Grohmann P, Stawarczyk B. Effect of zirconia surface treatments on the shear strength of zirconia/veneering ceramic composites. Dent Mater J 2008;27:448-54. 11.Aboushelib MN, de Jager N, Kleverlaan CJ, Feilzer AJ. Microtensile bond strength of different components of core veneered all-ceramic restorations. Dent Mater 2005;21:984-91. 12.Aboushelib MN, Kleverlaan CJ, Feilzer AJ. Microtensile bond strength of different components of core veneered all-ceramic restorations. Part II: Zirconia veneering ceramics. Dent Mater 2006;22:857-63. 13.Aboushelib MN, Kleverlaan CJ, Feilzer AJ. Effect of zirconia type on its bond strength with different veneer ceramics. J Prosthodont 2008;17:401-8. 14.Al-Dohan HM, Yaman P, Dennison JB, Razzoog ME, Lang BR. Shear strength of core-veneer interface in bi-layered ceramics. J Prosthet Dent 2004;91:349-55. 15.Fischer J, Stawarczyk B, Sailer I, Hmmerle CH. Shear bond strength between veneering ceramics and ceria-stabilized zirconia/ alumina. J Prosthet Dent 2010;103:267-74. 16.Guazzato M, Albakry M, Quach L, Swain MV. Influence of surface and heat treatments on the flexural strength of a glass-infiltrated alumina/zirconia-reinforced dental ceramic. Dent Mater 2005;21:454-63.

Volume 105 Issue 5

17.Guess PC, Kulis A, Witkowski S, Wolkewitz M, Zhang Y, Strub JR. Shear bond strengths between different zirconia cores and veneering ceramics and their susceptibility to thermocycling. Dent Mater 2008;24:1556-67. 18.Nakamura T, Wakabayashi K, Zaima C, Nishida H, Kinuta S, Yatani H. Tensile bond strength between tooth-colored porcelain and sandblasted zirconia framework. J Prosthodont Res 2009;53:116-9. 19.Tinschert J, Natt G, Mautsch W, Augthun M, Spiekermann H. Fracture resistance of lithium disilicate-, alumina-, and zirconiabased three-unit fixed partial dentures: a laboratory study. Int J Prosthodont 2001;14:231-8. 20.Al-Shehri SA, Mohammed H, Wilson CA. Influence of lamination on the flexural strength of a dental castable glass ceramic. J Prosthet Dent 1996;76:23-8. 21.De Jager N, Pallav P, Feilzer AJ. The influence of design parameters on the FEAdetermined stress distribution in CAD CAM produced all-ceramic dental crowns. Dent Mater 2005;21:242-51. 22.Isgr G, Pallav P, van der Zel JM, Feilzer AJ. The influence of the veneering porcelain and different surface treatments on the biaxial flexural strength of a heat-pressed ceramic. J Prosthet Dent 2003;90:465-73. 23.Smith TB, Kelly JR, Tesk JA. In vitro fracture behavior of ceramic and metal-ceramic restorations. J Prosthodont 1994;3:138-44. 24.Tsalouchou ECM, Cattell MJ, Knowles JC, Pittayachawan P, McDonald A. Fatigue and fracture properties of yttria partially stabilized zirconia crown systems. Dent Mater 2008;24:308-18. Corresponding author: Dr Mong-Sook Vang Department of Prosthodontics School of Dentistry, Chonnam National University 77 Yongbong-ro Buk-Gu Gwangju 500-757 KOREA Fax: +82-62-530-5639 E-mail: msvang@chonnam.ac.kr Copyright 2011 by the Editorial Council for The Journal of Prosthetic Dentistry.

CONCLUSIONS
Within the limitations of this study, the in vitro shear bond strength of veneering ceramic on zirconia treated with airborne-particle abrasion was significantly higher than that found with liner-applied treatments. The results demonstrated that application of a liner increased the possibility of interfacial failure of veneering ceramic from the zirconia core, and as such, airborne-particle abrasion would be more useful than a liner application.

REFERENCES
1. Sailer I, Fehr A, Filser F, Lthy H, Gauckler LJ, Schrer P, et al. Prospective clinical study of zirconia posterior fixed partial dentures: 3-year follow-up. Quintessence Int 2006;37:685-93. 2. Sailer I, Fehr A, Filser F, Gauckler LJ, Lthy H, Hmmerle CH. Five-year clinical results of zirconia frameworks for posterior fixed partial dentures. Int J Prosthodont 2007;20:383-8.

Availability of Journal Back Issues

As a service to our subscribers, copies of back issues of The Journal of Prosthetic Dentistry for the preceding 5 years are maintained and are available for purchase from Elsevier, Inc until inventory is depleted. Please write to Elsevier, Inc, Subscription Customer Service, 6277 Sea Harbor Dr, Orlando, FL 32887, or call 800-654-2452 or 407-345-4000 for information on availability of particular issues and prices.

The Journal of Prosthetic Dentistry

Kim et al