Home | About us | Editorial board | Search | Ahead of print | Current issue | Archives | Submit article | Instructions| Reviewers

Login 
  Home Print this page Email this page Small font sizeDefault font sizeIncrease font size Users Online: 978    
     


 
Table of Contents   
ORIGINAL ARTICLE
Year : 2015  |  Volume : 5  |  Issue : 8  |  Page : 74-81
Comparative evaluation of shear bond strengths of veneering porcelain to base metal alloy and zirconia substructures before and after aging – An in vitro study


1 Department of Prosthodontics, Malabar Dental College, Edapal, Kerala, India
2 Department of Periodontics, Malabar Dental College, Edapal, Kerala, India
3 Department of Conservative Dentistry, Malabar Dental College, Edapal, Kerala, India
4 Department of Orthodontics, Malabar Dental College, Edapal, Kerala, India
5 Department of Oral Pathology, Malabar Dental College, Edapal, Kerala, India

Date of Web Publication31-Dec-2015

Correspondence Address:
Laju Sreekala
Mahalakshmi House, Opposite Municipal Bus Stand, Kodungallur - 680 664, Thrissur District, Kerala
India
Login to access the Email id

Source of Support: None, Conflict of Interest: None


DOI: 10.4103/2231-0762.171590

Rights and Permissions

   Abstract 

Objective: The aim of this study was to evaluate and compare the shear bond strength of veneering porcelain to base metal alloy and zirconia substructures before and after aging. Scanning electron microscopy (SEM) was used to determine the failure pattern. Materials and Methods: Twenty rectangular blocks (9 mm length × 4 mm height × 4 mm width) of base metal alloy (Bellabond plus, Bego, Germany) and zirconia (Will ceramZ zirconia K block ) were fabricated for shear bond strength test. Surface of the base metal alloy block (4 mm × 4 mm area) was veneered with corresponding veneering porcelain (Ivoclar, IPS classic, vivadent). Similarly ,surface of the zirconia rectangular block (4 mm × 4 mm) was veneered with corresponding veneering ceramic (Cercon ceram kiss, Degudent).Out of forty rectangular porcelain veneered core specimen, ten porcelain veneered base metal alloy specimen and ten porcelain veneered zirconia specimen were immersed in water at 37°C for one month to simulate the oral environment. Results: On comparison , the highest shear bond strength value was obtained in porcelain veneered base metal alloy before aging group followed by porcelain veneered base metal alloy after aging group, Porcelain veneered zirconia before aging group, porcelain veneered zirconia after aging group. SEM analysis revealed predominantly cohesive failure of veneering ceramic in all groups. Conclusion: Porcelain veneered base metal alloy samples showed highest shear bond strength than porcelain veneered zirconia samples. Study concluded that aging had an influence on shear bond strength. Shear bond strength was found to be decreasing after aging. SEM analysis revealed cohesive failure of veneering ceramic in all groups suggestive of higher bond strength of the interface than cohesive strength of ceramic. Hence, it was concluded that veneering ceramic was the weakest link.


Keywords: Core–veneer restoration, delamination, porcelain-fused-to-metal restoration, shear bond strength, zirconia


How to cite this article:
Sreekala L, Narayanan M, Eerali SM, Eerali SM, Varghese J, Zainaba Fathima A I. Comparative evaluation of shear bond strengths of veneering porcelain to base metal alloy and zirconia substructures before and after aging – An in vitro study. J Int Soc Prevent Communit Dent 2015;5, Suppl S2:74-81

How to cite this URL:
Sreekala L, Narayanan M, Eerali SM, Eerali SM, Varghese J, Zainaba Fathima A I. Comparative evaluation of shear bond strengths of veneering porcelain to base metal alloy and zirconia substructures before and after aging – An in vitro study. J Int Soc Prevent Communit Dent [serial online] 2015 [cited 2019 Jul 20];5, Suppl S2:74-81. Available from: http://www.jispcd.org/text.asp?2015/5/8/74/171590



   Introduction Top


Core veneered restorations are the cornerstone for prosthetic dentistry, and combination of a strong core and an esthetic veneer ceramic has proven successful for many decades. Porcelain-fused-to metal restorations have been in use for more than five decades due to their improved mechanical properties.[1] However, metal ceramic restorations show the problem of metal discoloration at the margins, allergic reactions, and sensitivity to various metals. The metal substructure is opaque and does not duplicate the inherent translucency of natural teeth. Hence, the need for a restoration that mimics the natural tooth in esthetics and strength led to the development of yttrium tetragonal zirconia polycrystal (Y-TZP)-based materials.[2],[3],[4]

Superior mechanical properties, unique chemical stability, and esthetics combined with computer-aided design/computer-aided manufacturing (CAD/CAM) technology have made zirconia the core material of choice in recent years. Y-TZP also has a unique property of being resistant to crack propagation.[5]

Zirconia is the only ceramic material which meets the flexural strength requirements for fixed partial dentures (FPDs) of four or more units, as recommended by the International Organization for Standardization (ISO).[6],[7],[8] Yet, even while being strong, due to limited translucency, zirconia has been veneered with esthetic porcelain for better clinical acceptance. Veneering porcelain is a highly esthetic, fine-structure feldspar ceramic that is perfectly adapted to the coefficient of thermal expansion (CTE) value of zirconia frameworks and base metal frameworks as well.

Although zirconia core exhibited high stability as a framework material, chipping of veneering porcelain was found out to be a common cause of failure.[6] The common reasons cited as causes include lack of proper veneering ceramic support, ceramic layer thickness, and improper framework design.[9]

The success of the metal ceramic or ceramic veneered to zirconia core restorations depends primarily on the strong bond between the veneering ceramic and the substructure.

Shear bond strength test is one of the most reliable methods to evaluate the bond strength because it concentrates the applied tension on the interface between two materials.[10]

Generally, ceramics are brittle and have low tensile strength, and are prone to degradation in a moist environment. Hence, the presence of saliva in the oral cavity can have an impact on the ceramic restorations contributing to fatigue failure which occurs in dental prosthesis based on ceramics.[11],[12],[13],[14]

In view of the above considerations, the aim of the present in vitro study was to evaluate and compare the shear bond strength of veneering porcelain to base metal alloy and zirconia substructures before and after aging. Scanning electron microscope (SEM) was used to analyze the mode of failure.


   Materials and Methods Top


Materials used in the study

  • Bego, bremen, germany
  • Ivoclar vivadent, Bendererstrasse, Leichtenstein
  • Degudent, Hanau, Germany
  • Al dente, Horgenzell, Germany
  • GC corporation, Tokyo, Japan.


Methodology

A. Preparation of base metal alloy core–porcelain veneer samples [Figure 1]
Figure 1: Base metal alloy core–porcelain veneer samples

Click here to view


Twenty wax blocks of size 9 mm length × 4 mm height × 4 mm width were fabricated using Inlay wax (GC Corporation, Japan). The prepared wax patterns with sprue were invested in phosphate-bonded investment material (Bellasum; Bego, Germany). After setting, the investment mold was taken to the furnace and kept at room temperature. Then it was heated continuously till 950°C at the rate of 8°C/min and held for 30 min at 950°C in a centrifugal induction casting machine. Nickel–chromium alloy (Bellabond plus, Bego) was heated till the alloy ingot turned into molten state and the casting procedure was completed. The investment was left to cool to room temperature. Divestment was done and casting was retrieved. Sprues were cut with carborundum disk. A total of 20 rectangular base metal alloy samples were obtained.

Surface of the rectangular base metal alloy block (4 mm × 4 mm area) which had to be veneered with porcelain was sandblasted with 50 µ Al3O2 particles and steam cleaned. One layer of opaque porcelain was applied to the base metal alloy surface and fired in a dental porcelain furnace (Vita vacumat 100, Bad Säckingen, Germany) following the manufacturer's recommendation. Dentine porcelain was applied over the same area and fired. The excess porcelain was removed by using diamond burs with low-speed handpiece, so that the final dimension of the veneering ceramic was 3 mm length × 4 mm height × 4 mm width. The samples were finished and polished.

In this manner, 20 porcelain veneered base metal alloy samples were prepared and divided into two groups (group I and group II). Each group contained 10 samples. Group I and group II test samples were used to determine the shear bond strength before aging and after aging, respectively.

B. Preparation of zirconia core–porcelain veneer samples [Figure 2]
Figure 2: Zirconia core–porcelain veneer samples

Click here to view


The required dimension for the zirconia substructure in the present study was 9 mm length × 4 mm height × 4 mm width.

CAM system was used for preparation of zirconia samples.

CAD/CAM wax (Al dente, Horgenzell, Germany) was used to make rectangular block having dimension 9 mm × 4 mm × 4 mm. Rectangular block of CAD/CAM wax was mounted on a frame with the help of Cercon wax sticks which were connected to the milling machine. CAD/CAM brain (Milling Machine; Degudent, Germany) was used to mill zirconia block. Milling of the block was done with an enlargement factor of approximately 26% relative to the final dimension. This was compensated for the shrinkage that occurred during full sintering. On completion of milling, the zirconia core was finished and prepared for sintering. The zirconia block (green state) was sintered in a sintering furnace (Cercon heat; Degudent, Germany) according to manufacture; s recommendation. The surface of the rectangular zirconia block which had to be veneered was sandblasted with 50 µ Al3O2 particles and steam cleaned. After that, the liner (Cercon ceram Kiss liner; Degudent, Germany) was applied and fired. Veneering with ceramic (Cercon ceram Kiss; Degudent, Germany) was done using the layering technique as recommended by the manufacturer. Final dimension of the veneering ceramic was 3 mm length × 4 mm height × 4 mm width.

In this manner, 20 porcelain veneered zirconia samples were prepared and divided into two groups (group III and group IV) of 10 samples each. Group III and group IV test samples were used to determine the shear bond strength before aging and after aging, respectively.

Aging of the samples

Group II and group IV samples were immersed in distilled water separately in a stainless steel tray with lid and kept in an incubator at 37°C for 1 month to simulate the oral environment prior to testing.

Mounting the samples for shear bond strength test

Each test sample was embedded in the self-cure clear acrylic (DPI-RR) which was confined within a galvanized iron (GI) pipe mold of dimension 5 mm width and 20 mm diameter [Figure 3]a and [Figure 3]b.
Figure 3: (a) Porcelain veneered base metal alloy sample embedded in the mold. (b) Porcelain veneered zirconia core embedded in the mold

Click here to view


Test for shear bond strength

A total of 40 test samples (groups I–IV) were tested for shear bond strength in Universal Testing Machine (model LR 100K Lloyd instrument) [Figure 4]. The sample was aligned such that the bevelled blade of the machine was in line with the core veneer interface. Shear bond force (Newton) was exerted to the bonding interface at a cross-head speed of 0.5 mm/min until fracture occurred. Shear bond strength was calculated as: Shear bond strength (MPa) = shear bond force (N)/surface area (mm 2).
Figure 4: Sample in the Universal Testing Machine for shear bond strength test

Click here to view


To determine the mode of failure, the fractured samples were examined under SEM (JSM 6390LA; Jeol, Massachusetts, USA) under 30× and 250× magnification.


   Results Top


Basic values of shear bond strength of all test samples in the four groups were tabulated. The mean shear bond strength for each group was calculated and tabulated. The results were subjected to statistical analysis. Tested samples were subjected to qualitative analysis using SEM.

[Table 1],[Table 2],[Table 3],[Table 4] shows the data of the results obtained in this study for the shear bond strengths of samples in groups I–IV, respectively. [Table 5] shows a comparison of the mean shear bond strengths obtained from basic values of the four groups.
Table 1: Values of shear bond strength of veneering porcelain to base metal alloy substructure before aging (group I)

Click here to view
Table 2: Values of shear bond strength of veneering porcelain to base metal alloy substructure after aging (group II)

Click here to view
Table 3: Values of shear bond strength of veneering porcelain to zirconia substructure before aging (group III)

Click here to view
Table 4: Values of shear bond strength of veneering porcelain to zirconia substructure after aging (group IV)

Click here to view
Table 5: Mean shear bond strength obtained from basic values of the four groups

Click here to view


Statistical analysis

The data were analyzed using the software SPSS 10.0. Mean and standard deviations were estimated for the samples of each study group.

Descriptive statistics was used to find the mean and standard deviation of the variables. Independent Student's t-test was used to compare the bond strengths between groups. P < 0.05 was considered as the level of significance [Table 6],[Table 7],[Table 8],[Table 9].
Table 6: Comparison between mean values obtained from group I and group II

Click here to view
Table 7: Comparison between mean values obtained from group III and group IV

Click here to view
Table 8: Comparison between mean values obtained from group I and group III

Click here to view
Table 9: Comparison between mean values obtained from group II and group IV

Click here to view


On comparison of groups, the highest shear bond strength value was obtained in porcelain veneered base metal alloy before aging group, followed by porcelain veneered base metal alloy after aging group, porcelain veneered zirconia before aging group, and porcelain veneered zirconia after aging group (group I > group II > group III > group IV).

To evaluate the mode of failure, the interfaces of the fractured core surface and fractured veneer surface were examined under SEM under 30× and 250× magnification [Figure 5],[Figure 6],[Figure 7],[Figure 8].
Figure 5: (a and b): Tested porcelain veneered base metal alloy samples before aging under 30× (a) and 250× (b) magnification. (c and d) Fractured veneer surface under 30× (c) and 250× (d) magnification. Arrow indicates the direction of load. The loaded side demonstrates cohesive failure within the veneering porcelain. Many pores are visible within the veneering ceramic where the fracture originated. Fractured veneer surface does not show metal oxide layer suggesting cohesive failure of veneering ceramic

Click here to view
Figure 6: (a and b): Tested porcelain veneered base metal alloy samples after aging under 30× (a) and 250× (b) magnification. (c and d) Fractured veneer surface under 30× (c) and 250× (d) magnification. Arrow indicates the direction of load. The loaded side demonstrates both adhesive and cohesive failure, but predominantly cohesive failure within the veneering porcelain. High magnification of fractured veneer surface shows traces of metal oxide. Many pores are visible within the veneering ceramic

Click here to view
Figure 7: (a and b): Tested porcelain veneered zirconia samples before aging under 30× (a) and 250× (b) magnification. (c and d) Fractured veneer surface under 30× (c) and 250× (d) magnification. Arrow indicates the direction of load. The loaded side demonstrates presence of veneering ceramic on the zirconia substructure suggesting cohesive failure of the veneering porcelain. High magnification of fractured veneer surface and tested zirconia surface shows numerous pores in the veneering ceramic

Click here to view
Figure 8: (a and b): Tested porcelain veneered zirconia samples after aging under 30× (a) and 250× (b) magnification. (c and d) Fractured veneer surface under 30× (c) and 250× (d) magnification. Arrow represents the loaded side and shows veneering ceramic attached on zirconia substructure suggesting cohesive failure of veneering ceramic. High magnification of fractured veneer surface show a big pore inside the veneering ceramic

Click here to view


SEM analysis revealed the presence of veneering porcelain on the fractured surface of base metal alloy and zirconia samples in all groups suggesting a predominantly cohesive failure of veneering ceramic. Since the bond strength of the interface was higher than the cohesive strength of ceramic, it was concluded that the veneering ceramic was the weakest link.


   Discussion Top


Long-term assessment of conventional FPDs on durability score showed lower failure rates for metal ceramic FPDs.[15],[16] According to Creugers et al.[15] and Scurria et al.,[16] the failure rates of metal ceramic prosthesis after 10 years were 10% and 8%, respectively. Based on this data, porcelain-fused-to-metal systems still represent the gold standard. The ISO standardized the bond strength of metal ceramic system as <25 MPa.[17] However, bond strength measurement of all ceramic systems cannot be made due to their brittle nature.[18],[19]

Many factors affect the bonding between metal and porcelain, whereas micromechanical interactions are solely believed to be the bonding mechanism between zirconia core and veneering ceramic.[20],[21]

There were few short-term clinical studies addressing the clinical performance of zirconium dioxide based restorative systems. Raigrodski et al.,[22] in a study of posterior 3-unit FPD, observed minor veneer chipping in 25% of cases after a mean follow-up of 31.2 months. Sailer et al.[23] reported the success rate of three to five zirconia frameworks for posterior FPD after 5 years of clinical observation to be 97.8% in a clinical study. The survival rate diminished to 73.5% due to other causes.

Exposure to an aqueous environment results in strength degradation of ceramics, which is believed to be caused by a stress corrosion process due to accumulation of pre-existing flaws.

Out of many tests available to check the bond strength, shear bond strength test was found to be the most reliable test as it concentrates the applied tension on the interface between two materials.[24]

In our study, the highest shear bond strength value was obtained in porcelain veneered base metal alloy before aging group (mean value 39.51 MPa), followed by porcelain veneered base metal alloy after aging group (mean value 37.20 MPa), porcelain veneered zirconia before aging group (mean value 28.12 MPa), and porcelain veneered zirconia after aging group (mean value 26.20 MPa).

A study conducted by Choi et al.[25] evaluated the shear bond strength of veneering ceramic to base metal group and found it as 35.87 ± 4.23 MPa. Al-Dohan et al.[19] reported the shear bond strength of porcelain fused to metal as 30.16 ± 5.89 MPa. Drummond et al.[10] reported the shear bond strength of non-precious alloy after 4 months of aging as 25.07 ± 5.23 MPa and after 12 months of aging as 25.01 ± 7.06 MPa.

Choi et al.[25] evaluated the shear bond strength of veneering ceramic to zirconia substructure as 25.43 ± 3.12 MPa. Al-Dohan et al.[19] reported the shear bond strength of porcelain veneered zirconia as 27.90 ± 4.79 MPa. Morena et al.,[11] in their study about dental ceramic fatigue in a simulated oral environment, found the mean dynamic fatigue result for feldspathic porcelain as 44 MPa. In our study, the results obtained are in favor of ISO requirements and in concurrence with the results of previous studies conducted by many authors.

SEM under 30× and 250× magnification indicated that the fracture occurred predominantly in the veneering ceramic. As the veneering ceramic material is weak compared to high-strength core material, the veneering ceramic is prone to fail at low loads. Thus, all tested samples fractured as predominantly cohesive failure within the veneering ceramic. This type of failure mode indicated a sufficient interfacial bond between the core and the veneering material. The cohesive failure of veneering ceramic strongly suggests high residual stresses and minute porosities within the veneer layer. This may be related to the varying thermal diffusivity of core and veneer material. This cooling rate difference may lead to different stress states in the two systems.


   Conclusion Top


The highest shear bond strength value was obtained in porcelain veneered base metal alloy before aging group, followed by porcelain veneered base metal alloy after aging group, porcelain veneered zirconia before aging group, and porcelain veneered zirconia after aging group. Thus, it is concluded from this study that aging has an influence on ceramics. Presence of water degrades the strength of ceramic restorations. Since the bond strength of the interface was higher than the cohesive strength of veneering ceramic, it was concluded that the veneering ceramic was the weakest link. Improving the zirconia core–veneer bond strength and the strength of the veneering ceramic may reduce the failure and is paramount to the longevity of the all-ceramic restorations.

Financial support and sponsorship

Nil.

Conflicts of interest

There are no conflicts of interest.

 
   References Top

1.
Tan K, Pjetursson BE, Lang NP, Chan ES. A systemic review of the survival and complication rates of fixed partial dentures (FPDs) after an observation period of at least 5 years. Clin Oral Implant Res 2004;15:654-66.  Back to cited text no. 1
    
2.
Haselton DR, Diaz-Arnold AM, Hillis SL. Clinical assessment of high-strength all-ceramic crowns. J Prosthet Dent 2000;83:396-401.  Back to cited text no. 2
    
3.
Raigrodski AJ. Contemporary materials and technologies for all-ceramic fixed partial denture: A review of the literature. J Prosthet Dent 2004;92:557-62.  Back to cited text no. 3
    
4.
Guazzato M, Albakry M, Ringer SP, Swain MV. Strength, fracture toughness and microstructure of a selection of all-ceramic materials. Part II. Zirconia-based dental ceramics. Dent Mater 2004;20:449-56.  Back to cited text no. 4
    
5.
Sundh A, Sjögren G. A comparison of fracture strength of yttrium-oxide partially-stabilized zirconia crowns with varying core thickness, shapes and veneer ceramics. J Oral Rehabil 2004;31:682-8.  Back to cited text no. 5
    
6.
Sailer I, Pjetursson BE, Zwahlen M, Hämmerle CH. A systemic review of the survival and complication rates of all-ceramic and metal-ceramic reconstructions after an observation period of at least 3 years. Part II: Fixed partial prosthesis. Clin Oral Implants Res 2007;18(Suppl 3):86-96.  Back to cited text no. 6
    
7.
Sailer I, Fehér A, Filser F, Lüthy H, Gauckler LJ, Schärer P, et al. Prospective clincial study of Zirconia posterior fixed partial dentures: 3-year follow-up. Quintessence Int 2006;37:685-93.  Back to cited text no. 7
    
8.
Raigrodski AJ, Chiche GJ, Potiket N, Hochstedler JL, Mohamed SE, Billiot S, et al. The efficacy of posterior three unit zirconium-oxide-based ceramic fixed partial dental prostheses: A prospective clinical pilot study. J Prosthet Dent 2006;96:237-44.  Back to cited text no. 8
    
9.
Silva NR, Sailor I, Zhang Y, Coelho PG, Guess PC, Zembic A, et al. Performance of Zirconia for dental health care. Dent Mater 2010;3:863-96.  Back to cited text no. 9
    
10.
Drummond JL, Randolph RG, Jeckkals VJ, Lenke JW. Shear testing of the porcelain-metal bond. J Dent Res 1984;63:1400-1.  Back to cited text no. 10
    
11.
Morena R, Beaudreau GM, Lockwood PE, Evans AL, Fairhurst CW. Fatigue of dental ceramics in a simulated oral environment. J Dent Res 1986;65:993-7.  Back to cited text no. 11
    
12.
Yoshinari M, Dérand T. Fracture strength of all ceramic crowns. Int J Prosthodont 1994;7:329-38.  Back to cited text no. 12
    
13.
Sobrinho LC, Cattell MJ, Glover RH, Knowles JC. Investigation of dry and wet fatigue properties of three-all-ceramic crown systems. Int J Prosthodont 1998;11:255-62.  Back to cited text no. 13
    
14.
Yoshimura N. Corrosion and fatigue of fine ceramics. Kinzoku 1992;25:52-9.  Back to cited text no. 14
    
15.
Creugers NH, Käyser AF, van 't Hof MA. A meta-analysis of durability data on conventional fixed bridges. Community Dent Oral Epidemiol 1994;22:448-52.  Back to cited text no. 15
    
16.
Scurria MS, Barder JD, Shugars DA. Meta analysis of fixed partial denture survival: Prostheses and abutments. J Prosthet Dent 1998;79:459-64.  Back to cited text no. 16
    
17.
ISO 9693 Metal Ceramic Bond Characterization. 2nd ed. Geneva, Switzerland: International Organisation for Standardization; 1999. p. 12-15.  Back to cited text no. 17
    
18.
Albakry M, Guazzato M, Swain MV. Fracture toughness and hardness evaluation of three pressable all-ceramic dental materials. J Dent 2003;31:181-8.  Back to cited text no. 18
    
19.
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.  Back to cited text no. 19
    
20.
Anusavice KJ. Phillips Science of Dental Materials. 11th ed., Elsevier Health Sciences; 2003. p. 621 54.  Back to cited text no. 20
    
21.
Isgrò G, Pallav P, van der Zel JM, Feilzer AJ. The influence of veneering porcelain and different surface treatments on the biaxial flexural strength of a heat-pressed ceramic. J Prosthet Dent 2003;90:465-73.  Back to cited text no. 21
    
22.
Raigrodski AJ, Chiche GJ, Potiket N, Hochstedler JL, Mohamed SE, Billiot S, et al. The efficacy of posterior three-unit zirconium-oxide-based ceramic FPD prosthesis: A prospective clinical pilot study. J Prosthet Dent 2006;96:237-44.  Back to cited text no. 22
    
23.
Sailer I, Fehér A, Filser F, Gauckler LJ, Lüthy H, Hämmerle CH. Five-year clinical results of zirconia frameworks for posterior fixed partial dentures. Int J Prosthodont 2007;20:383-8.  Back to cited text no. 23
    
24.
Salazar M SM, Pereira SM, Ccahuana V VZ, Passos SP, Vanderlei AD, Pavanelli CA, et al. Shear bond strength between metal alloy and a ceramic system, submitted to different thermocycling immersion times. Acta Odontol Latinoam 2007;20:97-102.  Back to cited text no. 24
    
25.
Choi BK, Han JS, Yang JH, Lee JB, Kim SH. Shear bond strength of veneering porcelain to zirconia and metal cores. J Adv Prosthodont 2009;1:129-35.  Back to cited text no. 25
    


    Figures

  [Figure 1], [Figure 2], [Figure 3], [Figure 4], [Figure 5], [Figure 6], [Figure 7], [Figure 8]
 
 
    Tables

  [Table 1], [Table 2], [Table 3], [Table 4], [Table 5], [Table 6], [Table 7], [Table 8], [Table 9]



 

Top
Print this article  Email this article
 
  Search
 
  
    Similar in PUBMED
   Search Pubmed for
   Search in Google Scholar for
 Related articles
    Article in PDF (2,367 KB)
    Citation Manager
    Access Statistics
    Reader Comments
    Email Alert *
    Add to My List *
* Registration required (free)  


    Abstract
   Introduction
    Materials and Me...
   Results
   Discussion
   Conclusion
    References
    Article Figures
    Article Tables

 Article Access Statistics
    Viewed1752    
    Printed29    
    Emailed0    
    PDF Downloaded117    
    Comments [Add]    

Recommend this journal