Review of the fracture toughness approach
- PMID: 20045178
- DOI: 10.1016/j.dental.2009.11.151
Review of the fracture toughness approach
Abstract
Dental adhesives are usually tested in shear or tension even though neither of these approaches measures the local stress triggering failure. Because the stress level varies extensively over the bonded surface, it seems as a fracture mechanics approach would be more appropriate. In this review different general aspects of fracture mechanics and adhesive joints were reviewed first. That review served as a foundation for a review of fracture toughness studies performed on dental adhesives. The dental adhesive studies were identified through a MEDLINE search using "dental adhesion testing AND enamel OR dentin AND fracture toughness" as search strategy. The outcome of the review revealed that fracture toughness studies performed on dental adhesives are complex, both regarding technical performance as well as achieving good discriminating ability between different adhesives. The review also suggested that most fracture toughness tests of adhesives performed in dentistry are not totally reliable because they usually did not consider the complex stress pattern at the adhesive interface. However, despite these limitations, the review strongly supports the notion that the proper way of studying dental adhesion is by use a fracture mechanics. At the present time, it seems as the fracture energy of adhesives might be more appropriate to determine than their fracture toughness values.
Copyright 2009 Academy of Dental Materials. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Similar articles
-
Adhesion to tooth structure: a critical review of "macro" test methods.Dent Mater. 2010 Feb;26(2):e38-49. doi: 10.1016/j.dental.2009.11.150. Epub 2009 Dec 11. Dent Mater. 2010. PMID: 20004960 Review.
-
Direct comparison of the bond strength results of the different test methods: a critical literature review.Dent Mater. 2010 Feb;26(2):e78-93. doi: 10.1016/j.dental.2009.12.002. Epub 2010 Jan 8. Dent Mater. 2010. PMID: 20060160 Review.
-
Adhesion to tooth structure: a critical review of "micro" bond strength test methods.Dent Mater. 2010 Feb;26(2):e50-62. doi: 10.1016/j.dental.2009.11.155. Epub 2009 Dec 31. Dent Mater. 2010. PMID: 20045179 Review.
-
Three-dimensional finite element analysis of strength and adhesion of composite resin versus ceramic inlays in molars.J Prosthet Dent. 2008 Feb;99(2):131-40. doi: 10.1016/S0022-3913(08)60029-3. J Prosthet Dent. 2008. PMID: 18262014
-
Relationship between bond-strength tests and clinical outcomes.Dent Mater. 2010 Feb;26(2):e100-21. doi: 10.1016/j.dental.2009.11.148. Epub 2009 Dec 16. Dent Mater. 2010. PMID: 20006379 Review.
Cited by
-
A comparative evaluation of fracture toughness, flexural strength, and acid buffer capability of a bulk-fill alkasite with high-strength glass-ionomer cement: An in vitro study.Dent Res J (Isfahan). 2022 Oct 20;19:90. eCollection 2022. Dent Res J (Isfahan). 2022. PMID: 36426277 Free PMC article.
-
Simulating the Intraoral Aging of Dental Bonding Agents: A Narrative Review.Dent J (Basel). 2022 Jan 15;10(1):13. doi: 10.3390/dj10010013. Dent J (Basel). 2022. PMID: 35049611 Free PMC article. Review.
-
Glass Fiber-Epoxy Composites with Boron Nitride Nanotubes for Enhancing Interlaminar Properties in Structures.ACS Omega. 2022 Mar 15;7(12):10674-10686. doi: 10.1021/acsomega.2c00365. eCollection 2022 Mar 29. ACS Omega. 2022. PMID: 35382268 Free PMC article.
-
Endocrown restorations in premolars: influence of remaining axial walls of tooth structure and restorative materials on fatigue resistance.Clin Oral Investig. 2023 Jun;27(6):2957-2968. doi: 10.1007/s00784-023-04895-6. Epub 2023 Feb 14. Clin Oral Investig. 2023. PMID: 36781479
-
Fracture toughness of dental restorative materials.Clin Oral Investig. 2012 Apr;16(2):489-98. doi: 10.1007/s00784-011-0525-z. Epub 2011 Mar 2. Clin Oral Investig. 2012. PMID: 21365459
Publication types
MeSH terms
Substances
LinkOut - more resources
Full Text Sources