Qualitative SEM analysis of fracture surfaces for dental ceramics and polymers broken by flexural strength testing and crown compression

Abstract

AbstractPurposeTo perform qualitative analysis using scanning electron microscopy (SEM) of fracture surfaces for ceramic and polymeric dental materials broken via standardized flexural and crunch‐the‐crown (CTC) tests.Materials and MethodsZirconia, glass–ceramic, and polymeric (Trilor; TRI, Juvora; JUV, Pekkton; PEK) materials were loaded using crowns for CTC tests, discs (zirconia and glass–ceramics) for piston‐on‐3 ball tests, bars (polymer) for 3‐point bend tests, and bars (zirconia, glass–ceramics) for 4‐point bend tests. SEM was used to characterize the fracture surfaces and identify fracture surface features (e.g., origin, mist, hackle, and the direction of crack propagation [DCP]). Electron dispersive spectroscopy was used to identify the local chemistry.ResultsFracture surface features were found to be less visually apparent for glass–ceramics than zirconia. For zirconia bars, fractures originated roughly midway between the corner and center for processing defects related to sintering. Fractures originated at the bottom corners of glass–ceramic bars (void or surface flaw) and PEK bars (surface flaw). TRI bar failures exposed glassy fibers. Fracture features were generally less discernable for discs compared to bars for zirconia and glass–ceramics. Ceramic crowns fractured into 2 to 3 pieces, with fractures originating at the occlusal surface and clear evidence for the DCP. Failures of TRI and JUV specimens (bars and crowns) were less catastrophic than for the ceramics, with exposed fibers (TRI) and surface cracks (JUV). PEK crown and bar fractures presented dimple (ductile) features formed due to microvoid coalescence followed by brittle crack propagation.ConclusionsThe critical flaws responsible for failure initiation were a function of material composition and test configuration. Fractographic analysis can reveal problems associated with the manufacturing of materials, their handling, grinding and finishing/polishing procedures, the structural design and choice of material, and the quality of the final laboratory‐delivered restoration.