Graphene Oxide-Polypyrrole Coating for Functional Ceramics.

Ceramic substrates were metallized with a Ni-Mo-P electroless coating and further modified with a polypyrrole (PPy) coating by the electrodeposition method. The properties of the polypyrrole coating were studied with the addition of a graphene oxide (GO) nanomaterial prior to the electrodeposition and its reduction degree. Fourier Transform Infrared Spectroscopy, Field-Emission Scanning Electron Microscopy, Raman spectroscopy and cyclic voltammetry were employed to characterize the properties of the coatings. The results indicated the successful synthesis of conductive electrodes by the proposed approach. The electrodeposition of PPy and its charge storage properties are improved by chemically reduced GO. The surface capacitive contribution to the total stored charge was found to be dominant and increased 2-3 fold with the reduction of GO. The chemically reduced GO-modified PPy exhibits the highest capacitance of 660 F g-1 at 2 mV s-1, and shows a good cyclability of 94% after 500 charge/discharge cycles. The enclosed results indicate the use of an NiMoP electroless coating, and modification with a carbon nanomaterial and conducting polymer is a viable approach for achieving functional ceramics.

Improving Electrochemical Properties of Polypyrrole Coatings by Graphene Oxide and Carbon Nanotubes.

Nanostructured polypyrrole coating was applied on carbon paper via simple dip-coating and electrochemical approach. Hybridization with nanocarbon materials (graphene oxide (GO) and multi-walled carbon nanotubes (MWCNTs)) and their effect as an anchoring hybrid layer for the growth of polypyrrole towards improving electrochemical properties are studied. The loading of each component and their w/w ratio were evaluated. Fourier transform infrared spectroscopy, field emission scanning electron microscopy, and Raman spectroscopy were employed to characterize the properties of the coatings. The electrochemical properties were investigated by cyclic voltammetry. The results indicated the electrodeposition of polypyrrole is enhanced by the addition of MWCNTs to the GO layer due to the formation of a hierarchical network. The electrochemical performance of the modified electrode was shown to be highly dependent on the employed w/w ratio, reaching a capacitance value of about 40 mF cm-2 for a carbon paper substrate modified with GO:MWCNT in a w/w ratio of 1:2.5 and PPy layer deposited by cyclic voltammetry for 30 cycles. The contribution to total stored charge was found to be primary from the inner capacitance component of about 95.5% contribution.

Effect of Deposition Parameters on Electrochemical Properties of Polypyrrole-Graphene Oxide Films.

Graphene oxide (GO)-modified polypyrrole (PPy) coatings were obtained by electrochemical methods in the presence of the anionic surfactant, sodium dodecyl sulfate (SDS). The structure, morphology, and electrochemical properties of the coatings were assessed by Fourier transform infrared (FTIR) spectroscopy, Raman spectroscopy, scanning electron microscopy (SEM) and cyclic voltammetry at varying scan rates, respectively. The properties of the obtained coatings were analyzed with the GO and PPy loadings and electrodeposition mode. The hybrid coatings obtained galvanostatically showed a coarser appearance than those deposited by cyclic voltammetry CV mode and improved performance, respectively, which was further enhanced by GO and PPy loading. The capacitance enhancement can be attributed to the SDS surfactant that well dispersed the GO sheets, thus allowing the use of lower GO content for improved contribution, while the choice of suitable electrodeposition parameters is highly important for improving the applicability of GO-modified PPy coatings in energy storage applications.

Bond strength of selected composite resin-cements to zirconium-oxide ceramic

Objectives: The aim of this study was to evaluate bond strengths of zirconium-oxide (zirconia) ceramic and a selection of different composite resin cements. Study Design: 130 Lava TM cylinders were fabricated. The cylinders were sandblasted with 80 µm aluminium oxide or silica coated with CoJet Sand. Silane, and bonding agent and/or Clearfil Ceramic Primer were applied. One hundred thirty composite cement cylinders, comprising two dual-polymerizing (Variolink II and Panavia F) and two autopolymerizing (Rely X and Multilink) resins were bonded to the ceramic samples. A shear test was conducted, followed by an optical microscopy study to identify the location and type of failure, an electron microscopy study (SEM and TEM) and statistical analysis using the Kruskal-Wallis test or more than two independent samples and Mann-Whitney for two independent samples. Given the large number of combinations, Bonferroni correction was applied (alfa=0.001). Results: Dual-polymerizing cements provided better adhesion values (11.7 MPa) than the autopolymerizing (7.47 MPa) (p-value M-W<0.001). The worst techniques were Lava TM + sandblasting + Silane + Rely X; Lava TM + sandblasting + Silane + Multilink and Lava TM + CoJet + silane + Multilink. Adhesive failure (separation of cement and ceramic) was produced at a lesser force than cohesive failure (fracture of cement) (p-value M-W<0.001). Electron microscopy confirmed that the surface treatments modified the zirconium-oxide ceramic, creating a more rough and retentive surface, thus providing an improved micromechanical interlocking between the cement and the ceramic. Conclusions: Best results were provided by dual-polymerizing cements associated with sandblasting or silica coating and a bonding agent containing MDP (AU)

No disponible

Bond strength of selected composite resin-cements to zirconium-oxide ceramic.

OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study was to evaluate bond strengths of zirconium-oxide (zirconia) ceramic and a selection of different composite resin cements. STUDY DESIGN: 130 Lava TM cylinders were fabricated. The cylinders were sandblasted with 80 µm aluminium oxide or silica coated with CoJet Sand. Silane, and bonding agent and/or Clearfil Ceramic Primer were applied. One hundred thirty composite cement cylinders, comprising two dual-polymerizing (Variolink II and Panavia F) and two autopolymerizing (Rely X and Multilink) resins were bonded to the ceramic samples. A shear test was conducted, followed by an optical microscopy study to identify the location and type of failure, an electron microscopy study (SEM and TEM) and statistical analysis using the Kruskal-Wallis test for more than two independent samples and Mann-Whitney for two independent samples. Given the large number of combinations, Bonferroni correction was applied (α=0.001). RESULTS: Dual-polymerizing cements provided better adhesion values (11.7 MPa) than the autopolymerizing (7.47 MPa) (p-value M-W<0.001). The worst techniques were Lava TM + sandblasting + Silane + Rely X; Lava TM + sandblasting + Silane + Multilink and Lava TM + CoJet + silane + Multilink. Adhesive failure (separation of cement and ceramic) was produced at a lesser force than cohesive failure (fracture of cement) (p-value M-W<0.001). Electron microscopy confirmed that the surface treatments modified the zirconium-oxide ceramic, creating a more rough and retentive surface, thus providing an improved micromechanical interlocking between the cement and the ceramic. CONCLUSIONS: Best results were provided by dual-polymerizing cements associated with sandblasting or silica coating and a bonding agent containing MDP.

In vitro experimental study of bonding between aluminium oxide ceramicsand resin cements

To evaluate bond strengths of different resin cements to two aluminum oxide-based ceramics. Methods: Onehundred ten ceramic cylinders were produced and given four different surface treatments. Resin cement cylinderswere then bonded to the ceramic cylinders using different resin cements and the bond strength was determinedby shear testing to the breaking point. We were thus able to obtain results for the different combinations of porcelain,surface treatments and cements. All data was analyzed using the Kruskal-Wallis test for more than twoindependent samples and the Bonferroni correction applied (a=0.01). An optical microscopy study was carriedout to analyze the type of failure, and an electronic microscopy examination was carried out in order to evaluatethe changes produced in the ceramic by the different surface treatments. Results: The best values correspondedto the control group, composed of silicate ceramics combined with Variolink II resin cement. In-Ceram Aluminashowed no significant differences with respect to the type of cement applied. Procera AllCeram obtained the bestvalues when silica coated using the CoJet System and applying Variolink II, or when sandblasted and applyingClearfil SE Bond + Porcelain Bond Activator and Panavia F cement. Significance: Surface treatment modifies theceramic surface and influences the bond strength, as does the type of cement used. Silica coating is recommendedto improve adhesion to Procera AllCeram, applying Variolink II, or sandblasting plus resin cement containingMDP (Panavia F) (AU)

No disponible

In vitro experimental study of bonding between aluminium oxide ceramics and resin cements.

UNLABELLED: To evaluate bond strengths of different resin cements to two aluminum oxide-based ceramics. METHODS: One hundred ten ceramic cylinders were produced and given four different surface treatments. Resin cement cylinders were then bonded to the ceramic cylinders using different resin cements and the bond strength was determined by shear testing to the breaking point. We were thus able to obtain results for the different combinations of porcelain, surface treatments and cements. All data was analyzed using the Kruskal-Wallis test for more than two independent samples and the Bonferroni correction applied (a=0.01). An optical microscopy study was carried out to analyze the type of failure, and an electronic microscopy examination was carried out in order to evaluate the changes produced in the ceramic by the different surface treatments. RESULTS: The best values corresponded to the control group, composed of silicate ceramics combined with Variolink II resin cement. In-Ceram Alumina showed no significant differences with respect to the type of cement applied. Procera AllCeram obtained the best values when silica coated using the CoJet System and applying Variolink II, or when sandblasted and applying Clearfil SE Bond + Porcelain Bond Activator and Panavia F cement. SIGNIFICANCE: Surface treatment modifies the ceramic surface and influences the bond strength, as does the type of cement used. Silica coating is recommended to improve adhesion to Procera AllCeram, applying Variolink II, or sandblasting plus resin cement containing MDP (Panavia F).