This is the ultimate quality of core/veneer FK506 research buy interface recommended by many authors.2–4 The Cohesive Plateau theory states that the strength of a bonded interface should equal the cohesive strength of the substrate with which it is formed.3 In addition, former studies testing the porcelain-to-metal bond strength suggested that SBS equal to the shear strength of the veneering porcelain provided an adequate bond.4 VM7 was reported to possess a flexural strength of 104.1 (8.4) MPa, as compared to 78.3 (7.6) MPa for Vitadur Alpha,15 while that of Vitadur N was reported to

be 62 MPa.30 These values are in agreement with the bond values obtained in this study, as the tensile field lateral to any point contact on a ceramic, such as created by a knife edge in this study, could be the site of initiation of failure as in the “shear” test. Hence, the values found are in accordance with reported shear values. EDX analysis revealed differences in the chemical composition between the tested ceramics (Fig 8, Table 3). Regarding In-Ceram alumina core, alumina was present as a major

crystalline phase. Silica, lanthanum, and calcium were also detected in different weight percentages (Fig 8). EDX analysis revealed differences in the percentages of chemical components of the veneering materials, which probably accounted for their behavioral differences Ivacaftor solubility dmso concerning the shear bond and microhardness test results. These findings agree with those of other authors;6,29 however, Pellier et al31 reported higher alumina weight percentages in their study. Finally, the ideal tangential and radial tensile stress is ensured if the CTE of the ceramic has been optimally matched with the CTE of the alumina core material. The CTE of In-Ceram alumina core is reported by the manufacturer Buspirone HCl to be 7.2 to 7.6 × 10−6°C while that of Vitadur Alpha is approximately 6.7 × 10−6°C, 15 and VM7 veneer is 7.2 to 7.9 × 10−6°C. This may

explain the perfect interface between the two latter veneering materials as opposed to the formerly developed material. This is in addition to the slight differences in weight percentages of the chemical elements as evident in Table 3. Furthermore, it may be assumed that the fine grain veneer evident in the SEM (Fig 7C) probably allowed better wetting of the veneer and penetration of the micro-irregularities in the sandblasted core surface, thus promoting the bond through interlocking. Thus it may be assumed that micromechanical, chemical, and compressive bonding were established in VM7, creating the perfect bond, contrary to previous generation materials.