J Adv Prosthodont.  2014 Jun;6(3):215-223. 10.4047/jap.2014.6.3.215.

Properties of experimental copper-aluminium-nickel alloys for dental post-and-core applications

• Rittapai A
• Urapepon S
• Kajornchaiyakul J
• Harniratisai C

• KMID: 2118233
• DOI: http://doi.org/10.4047/jap.2014.6.3.215

Abstract

PURPOSE
This study aimed to develop a copper-aluminium-nickel alloy which has properties comparable to that of dental alloys used for dental post and core applications with the reasonable cost.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
Sixteen groups of experimental copper alloys with variants of 3, 6, 9, 12 wt% Al and 0, 2, 4, 6 wt% Ni were prepared and casted. Their properties were tested and evaluated. The data of thermal, physical, and mechanical properties were analyzed using the two-way ANOVA and Tukey's test (alpha=0.05). The alloy toxicity was evaluated according to the ISO standard.
RESULTS
The solidus and liquidus points of experimental alloys ranged from 1023degrees C to 1113degrees C and increased as the nickel content increased. The highest ultimate tensile strength (595.9 +/- 14.2 MPa) was shown in the Cu-12Al-4Ni alloy. The tensile strength was increased as the both elements increased. Alloys with 3-6 wt% Al exhibited a small amount of 0.2% proof strength. Accordingly, the Cu-9Al-2Ni and Cu-9Al-4Ni alloys not only demonstrated an appropriate modulus of elasticity (113.9 +/- 8.0 and 122.8 +/- 11.3 GPa, respectively), but also had a value of 0.2% proof strength (190.8 +/- 4.8 and 198.2 +/- 3.4 MPa, respectively), which complied with the ISO standard requirement (>180 MPa). Alloys with the highest contents of nickel (6 wt% Ni) revealed a widespread decolourisation zone (5.0-5.9 mm), which correspondingly produced the largest cell response, equating positive control.
CONCLUSION
The copper alloys fused with 9 wt% Al and 2-4 wt% Ni can be considered for a potential use as dental post and core applications.

Keyword

Cu-Al-Ni alloy; Copper alloy; Dental alloy; Post and core

MeSH Terms

Alloys*
Copper
Dental Alloys
Elastic Modulus
Nickel
Tensile Strength
Alloys
Copper
Dental Alloys
Nickel

Figure

• 

  Fig. 1 Solidus, liquidus and melting ranges of experimental alloys.

Reference

1. Stockton LW. Factors affecting retention of post systems: a literature review. J Prosthet Dent. 1999; 81:380–385.

2. Kantor ME, Pines MS. A comparative study of restorative techniques for pulpless teeth. J Prosthet Dent. 1977; 38:405–412.

3. Leary JM, Aquilino SA, Svare CW. An evaluation of post length within the elastic limits of dentin. J Prosthet Dent. 1987; 57:277–281.

4. Eissman HF, Radke RA Jr. Postendodontic restoration. In : Cohen S, Burns RC, editors. Pathway of the pulp. 4th ed. St. Louis: Mosby;1987. p. 640–683.

5. Potashnick SR, Weine FS, Strauss S. Restoration of the endodontically treated tooth. In : Weine FS, editor. Endodontic therapy. 4th ed. St. Louis: Mosby;1989. p. 653–698.

6. Harold H, Charles JG. Preparation for restoration. In : Torabinejad M, Walton RE, editors. Endodontics: Principles and practice. 4th ed. St. Louis; MO: Saunders;Elsiver Health Sciences;2009. p. 287–289.

7. Gutmann JL. The dentin-root complex: anatomic and biologic considerations in restoring endodontically treated teeth. J Prosthet Dent. 1992; 67:458–467.

8. Anusavice KJ. Mechanical properties of dental materials. In : Anusavice KJ, editor. Phillips' Science of Dental Materials. 11th ed. St. Louis: Saunders Co;2003. p. 73–101.

9. Sorensen JA, Engelman MJ, Daher T, Caputo AA. Altered corrosion resistance from casting to stainless steel posts. J Prosthet Dent. 1990; 63:630–637.

10. Cohen A. ASTM International, MNL20-2ND-EB. Jan. 2005. p. 565.

11. ISO 22674. Dentistry-Metallic materials for fixed and removable restorations and appliances. Geneva; Switzerland: International Organization for Standar-dization;2006.

12. ISO 10993-5. Biological evaluation of medical devices-Part 5: Tests for in vitro cytotoxicity. Geneva; Switzerland: International Organization for Standar-dization;1999.

13. Geurtsen W. Biocompatibility of dental casting alloys. Crit Rev Oral Biol Med. 2002; 13:71–84.

14. Wataha JC. Biocompatibility of dental casting alloys: a review. J Prosthet Dent. 2000; 83:223–234.

15. Davis JR. Desk. Metal handbook. 2nd ed. The materials information society. ASM international;1998. p. 442. p. 510.

16. Sorensen JA, Martinoff JT. Clinically significant factors in dowel design. J Prosthet Dent. 1984; 52:28–35.

17. Trabert KC, Cooney JP. The endodontically treated tooth. Restorative concepts and techniques. Dent Clin North Am. 1984; 28:923–951.

18. Treathewey KR, Chamberlain J. The theory of aqueous corrosion. Corrosion for science and engineering. 2nd ed. Addison-Wesley; Longman;1995. p. 116.

19. Meyer JM, Nally JN. Influence of artificial salivas on the corrosion of dental alloys. J Dent Res. 1975; 54:678.

20. Marek M, Topfl E. Electrolytes for corrosion testing of dental alloys. J Dent Res. 1986; 65:301.

21. Ewers GJ, Greener EH. The electrochemical activity of the oral cavity-a new approach. J Oral Rehabil. 1985; 12:469–476.

22. ISO 7405. Dentistry-Evaluation of biocompatibility of medical devices used in dentistry. Geneva; Switzerland: International Organization for Standar-dization;2008.

23. Hartwig A, Asmuss M, Ehleben I, Herzer U, Kostelac D, Pelzer A, Schwerdtle T, Bürkle A. Interference by toxic metal ions with DNA repair processes and cell cycle control: molecular mechanisms. Environ Health Perspect. 2002; 110:797–799.

24. Thyssen JP, Linneberg A, Menné T, Johansen JD. The epidemiology of contact allergy in the general population-prevalence and main findings. Contact Dermatitis. 2007; 57:287–299.

25. Kornik R, Zug KA. Nickel. Dermatitis. 2008; 19:3–8.

26. Norseth T. Cancer hazards caused by nickel and chromium exposure. J Toxicol Environ Health. 1980; 6:1219–1227.

27. Setcos JC, Babaei-Mahani A, Silvio LD, Mjör IA, Wilson NH. The safety of nickel containing dental alloys. Dent Mater. 2006; 22:1163–1168.