Effect of SiC Abrasive Blasting Parameters on the Quality of the Ceramic and Ni-Cr Dental Alloy Joint

Abstract

The SiC abrasive blasting parameters are vital in ensuring a suitable bond between dental ceramics and the Ni-Cr alloy. The purpose of this in vitro test was to examine the strength of the joint between the Ni-Cr alloy and fused dental ceramics for SiC abrasive blasting at a specific pressure (400, 600 kPa) and particle size (50, 110, 250 µm) in order to determine the optimal treatment parameters. The test also accounted for thermal loads (5000 cycles, 5-55 °C) to which the metal-ceramic joint is subjected during use. One hundred and forty-four Ni-Cr cylinders were divided into six groups (n = 12) and subjected to the airborne-particle abrasion with SiC with various pressure and grit size parameters. After treatment, the specimens were rinsed, dried, fused to dental ceramics, and examined for their shear strength using the Zwick/Roell Z020 machine. The results were statistically analysed using the ANOVA analysis of variance (α = 0.05). The highest metal-ceramic joint strength was obtained for abrasive blasting with 110 and 250 µm SiC grit at a pressure of 400 kPa. This relationship was also observed after the joint was subjected to thermal loads (5000 thermocycles). Additionally, thermal loads did not significantly reduce the joint's strength compared with non-loaded joints. For small SiC abrasive grit sizes (50 µm) under pressure 400 kPa, the treatment pressure had a significant effect on the strength of the joint (p < 0.05). For larger particle sizes, the pressure had no effect. After abrasive blasting using SiC, the Ni-Cr metal-ceramic joint retained its properties, even under thermal load, ensuring the joint properties' stability during use.

Keywords: Ni-Cr alloy; abrasive blasting; metal-ceramic bond strength; shear strength; thermocycles.

Figure 1

Microscopic image with the spatial distribution of elements in the fracture of S45 specimen (600 kPa/50 μm); (a) topography view; (b) surface distribution of nickel; (c) surface distribution of chromium; (d) surface distribution of oxygen; (e) surface distribution of aluminum; (f) surface distribution of silico.

Figure 1

Microscopic image with the spatial distribution of elements in the fracture of S45 specimen (600 kPa/50 μm); (a) topography view; (b) surface distribution of nickel; (c) surface distribution of chromium; (d) surface distribution of oxygen; (e) surface distribution of aluminum; (f) surface distribution of silico.

Figure 2

Microscopic image with the spatial distribution of elements in the fracture of S42 specimen (400 kPa/250 μm); (a) topography view; (b) surface distribution of nickel; (c) surface distribution of chromium; (d) surface distribution of oxygen; (e) surface distribution of aluminum; (f) surface distribution of silico.

Figure 2

Microscopic image with the spatial distribution of elements in the fracture of S42 specimen (400 kPa/250 μm); (a) topography view; (b) surface distribution of nickel; (c) surface distribution of chromium; (d) surface distribution of oxygen; (e) surface distribution of aluminum; (f) surface distribution of silico.