Effect of anodization on metal-ceramic bond strength of titanium manufactured by selective laser melting: an in vitro study

Titanium is used in metal-ceramic restorations due to its biocompatibility and cost-effectiveness, yet concerns persist regarding veneering ceramic debonding. This is largely attributed to titanium’s high elasticity and the formation of a thick, poorly adherent oxide layer. Anodization and additive manufacturing (SLM) have been proposed to improve titanium’s surface characteristics and bonding performance. This in vitro study aimed to evaluate the effect of anodization on the metal-ceramic bond strength of 3D-printed titanium compared to non-anodized titanium and cobalt–chromium (CoCr) alloy. Thirty metal plates (10 CoCr, 10 non-anodized titanium, 10 anodized titanium) were fabricated using selective laser melting (SLM). SEM-EDS analysis was performed on the metal plates to evaluate surface composition and morphology. Veneering process and the subsequent mechanical testing followed ISO 9693-1:2019 standards. Bond strength was measured using a universal testing machine, and data were statistically analyzed via one-way ANOVA and Tukey HSD post hoc test (α = 0.05). The anodized group showed higher bond strength (59.26 ± 4.19 MPa; 95% CI: 56.9–61.6) compared with non-anodized titanium (54.37 ± 4.13 MPa; 95% CI: 52.6–56.1; p = 0.034, mean difference 4.89 MPa, Cohen’s d = 1.18). Cobalt–chromium outperformed both titanium groups (86.81 ± 3.72 MPa; 95% CI: 84.8–88.8; p < 0.001). Although the anodization effect reached statistical significance, the ≈ 5 MPa difference is unlikely to be clinically meaningful according to ISO 9693 and prior clinical benchmarks. Anodization enhances the bonding performance of 3D-printed titanium but does not match the strength of conventional CoCr frameworks. When titanium is selected for metal-ceramic systems, especially in high-load cases, a bulkier framework design is recommended to minimize the risk of framework flexibility and failure.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
BMC Oral Health
Published
2025-12-04
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1186/s12903-025-07295-2
Primary Topic
Dental materials and restorations
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
0.00
Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

Effect of anodization on metal-ceramic bond strength of titanium manufactured by selective laser melting: an in vitro study

Roland Told, Gyula Marada, Péter Szabó, Ádám Németh et al.
BMC Oral Health
Dental materials and restorations
article

Effect of anodization on metal-ceramic bond strength of titanium manufactured by selective laser melting: an in vitro study

Roland Told, Gyula Marada, Péter Szabó, Ádám Németh, Attila Mühl, Kinga Turzó, Iván Mandel, Ákos Nagy, János Kónya
article en

Abstract

Titanium is used in metal-ceramic restorations due to its biocompatibility and cost-effectiveness, yet concerns persist regarding veneering ceramic debonding. This is largely attributed to titanium’s high elasticity and the formation of a thick, poorly adherent oxide layer. Anodization and additive manufacturing (SLM) have been proposed to improve titanium’s surface characteristics and bonding performance. This in vitro study aimed to evaluate the effect of anodization on the metal-ceramic bond strength of 3D-printed titanium compared to non-anodized titanium and cobalt–chromium (CoCr) alloy. Thirty metal plates (10 CoCr, 10 non-anodized titanium, 10 anodized titanium) were fabricated using selective laser melting (SLM). SEM-EDS analysis was performed on the metal plates to evaluate surface composition and morphology. Veneering process and the subsequent mechanical testing followed ISO 9693-1:2019 standards. Bond strength was measured using a universal testing machine, and data were statistically analyzed via one-way ANOVA and Tukey HSD post hoc test (α = 0.05). The anodized group showed higher bond strength (59.26 ± 4.19 MPa; 95% CI: 56.9–61.6) compared with non-anodized titanium (54.37 ± 4.13 MPa; 95% CI: 52.6–56.1; p = 0.034, mean difference 4.89 MPa, Cohen’s d = 1.18). Cobalt–chromium outperformed both titanium groups (86.81 ± 3.72 MPa; 95% CI: 84.8–88.8; p < 0.001). Although the anodization effect reached statistical significance, the ≈ 5 MPa difference is unlikely to be clinically meaningful according to ISO 9693 and prior clinical benchmarks. Anodization enhances the bonding performance of 3D-printed titanium but does not match the strength of conventional CoCr frameworks. When titanium is selected for metal-ceramic systems, especially in high-load cases, a bulkier framework design is recommended to minimize the risk of framework flexibility and failure.

BMC Oral HealthVol. 26(1)
Dentsply Sirona (United States) (US), University of Pecs (HU)
Openalex Percentile: Top 56%
Dental materials and restorations
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.