R. Padrós et al. Mechanical Properties of CoCr Dental-Prosthesis Restorations made by Three Manufacturing Processes. Influence of the Microstructure and Topography. Metals

R. Padrós, M. Punset, M. Molmeneu, A. Brizuela-Velasco, M. Herrero-Climent, E. Rupérez, F.J. Gil. Mechanical Properties of CoCr Dental-Prosthesis Restorations made by Three Manufacturing Processes. Influence of the Microstructure and Topography. Metals 2020, 10, 788.

doi: 10.3390/met10060788

Abstract

The aim of this study is to compare the mechanical properties of three different dental restorations’ manufacturing processes (CADCAM milling, casting and laser sintering) generated by only one laboratory scanner focusing on marginal fit analysis and their mechanical properties. A chrome-cobalt (Cr-Co) alloy from the same batch was used for three different methods to make an implant abutment. This simulates a maxillary right first molar that was fixed in a hemi-maxillary stone model. Five scans were performed by each tested framework. Nine frameworks were manufactured for each manufacture procedure. Field-Emission Scanning Electron Microscope (FE-SEM) direct vision was used to marginal gap measurement in five critical points for each specimen. In order to fix the samples in the microscope chamber, the restorations were submitted at a compression load of 50 N. The samples always have the same orientation and conditions. The resolution of the microscope is 4 nm and it is equipped by J image software. The microstructure of the samples was also determined with the FE-SEM equipped with EDS-microanalysis. Roughness parameters were measured using White Light Interferometry (WLI). The arithmetical mean for the Ra and Rq of each sample was calculated. The samples were mechanically characterized by means of microhardness and flexural testing. Servo-hydraulic testing machine was used with cross-head rate of 1 mm/min. Two-way ANOVA statistical analysis was performed to determine whether the marginal discrepancies and mechanical properties were significantly different between each group (significance level p < 0.05). The overall mean marginal gap values were: from 50.53 ± 10.30 µm for the samples produced by CADCAM to 85.76 ± 22.56 µm for the samples produced by the casting method. Laser sintering presents a marginal gap of 60.95 ± 20.66 µm. The results revealed a statistically significant difference (p-value < 0.005) in the mean marginal gap between the CADCAM systems studied. The higher flexure load to fracture for these restorations were for CADCAM restoration and the lower was for the casting samples. For these restorations, CADCAM Restoration yielded a higher flexure load to Metals 2020, 10, 788; doi:10.3390/met10060788 www.mdpi.com/journal/metalsMetals 2020, 10, 788 2 of 18 fracture and Casting ones yielded the lower. Porosity and microstructure play a very important role in the mechanical properties.

Keywords
papers