• Users Online: 135
  • 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 
Year : 2016  |  Volume : 16  |  Issue : 2  |  Page : 142-147

Comparative evaluation of bonding strength of computer aided machined ceramic, pressable ceramic, and milled metal implant abutment copings and effect of surface conditioning on bonding strength: An in vitro study

Department of Prosthodontics, MAIDS, New Delhi, India

Correspondence Address:
Sapna Rani
House No. 2062, Sector 7/d, Faridabad - 121 006, Haryana
Login to access the Email id

Source of Support: None, Conflict of Interest: None

DOI: 10.4103/0972-4052.176517

Rights and Permissions

Background/Purpose: The aim of this study was to compare the shear bond strength of computer aided design/computer aided machined ceramic (CAD/CAM), pressable ceramic, and milled metal implant copings on abutment and the effect of surface conditioning on bonding strength. Materials and Methods: A total of 90 test samples were fabricated on three titanium abutments. Among 90 test samples, 30 copings were fabricated by CAD/CAM, 30 by pressable, and 30 by milling of titanium metal. These 30 test samples in each group were further subdivided equally for surface treatment. Fifteen out of 30 test samples in each group were surface conditioned with airborne particle abrasion. All the 90 test samples were luted on abutment with glass ionomer cement. Bonding strength was evaluated for all the samples using universal testing machine at a crosshead speed of 5 mm/min. The results obtained were compared and evaluated using one-way ANOVA with post-hoc and unpaired t-test at a significance level of 0.05. Results: The mean difference for CAD/CAM surface conditioned subgroup was 1.28 ± 0.12, for nonconditioned subgroup was 1.20 ± 0.11. The mean difference for pressable surface conditioned subgroup was 1.18 ± 0.04, and for nonconditioned subgroup was 0.75 ± 0.28. The mean difference for milled metal surface conditioned subgroup was 2.57 ± 0.58, and for nonconditioned subgroup was 1.49 ± 0.15. Conclusions: On comparison of bonding strength, milled metal copings had an edge over the other two materials, and surface conditioning increased the bond strength.

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
    PDF Downloaded251    
    Comments [Add]    

Recommend this journal