Comparison of the corrosion resistance and the mechanical stability after corrosion of 3D printing and cast cobalt-chromium alloy

doi:10.3877/cma.j.issn.1674-1366.2016.05.005

Abstract

Abstract:

Objective

To compare the corrosion resistance and the mechanical stability after corrosion of 3D printing and cast cobalt-chromium (Co-Cr) alloy.

Methods

The Co-Cr alloys were fabricated by the selective laser melting (SLM) technique and casting technique with suitable parameters, seventy-two specimens were prepared and divided into 12 groups (n= 6) by random number method. Static immersion test was used to evaluate corrosion resistance and the effect of the corrosion on the mechanical stability of the alloys. Surface roughness (Ra) , vickers hardness (VHN) , tensile strength (TS) and bending strength (BS) of the samples were analyzed separately by confocal laser scanning microscope (CLSM) , vicker microhardness tester, universal testing machine. The results were analyzed by 2×2 factorial design analysis of variance (α= 0.05) , the pairwise comparison was performed with Bonferroni method.

Results

Manufacturing methods and corrosion had no interaction effects on Ra and BS (F_Ra= 2.989, P_Ra= 0.099; F_BS= 0.480, P_BS= 0.496) . The two factors′ main effects on Ra had significant differences (F_method= 6.262, P_method= 0.021; F_corrosion= 6.581, P_corrosion= 0.018) . The Ra of 3D group was lower than that of cast group [Ra_3D= (0.084 ± 0.026) μm, Ra_cast= (0.111 ± 0.024) μm]. The Ra of contrast group was lower than that of corrosion group[Ra_contrast= (0.084 ± 0.025) μm, Ra_corrosion= (0.111 ± 0.025) μm]. The two factors′ main effects on BS had significant differences (F_method= 6.753, P_method= 0.013; F_corrosion= 7.384, P_corrosion= 0.017) . The BS of 3D group was higher than that of cast group [BS_3D= (1651 ± 242) MPa, BS_cast= (1371 ± 252) MPa]. The BS of contrast group was higher than that of corrosion group [BS_contrast= (1645 ± 183) MPa, BS_corrosion= (1377 ± 310) MPa]. Manufacturing methods and corrosion had interaction effects on VHN and TS (F_VHN= 5.018, P_VHN= 0.037; F_TS= 5.903, P_TS= 0.025) . The results of the pairwise comparison of Bonferroni method suggested significant differences on VHN and TS (P_VHN<0.001, P_TS<0.001) were found between the 3D contrast group [VHN_3D= (469 ± 4) HV, TS_3D= (1010 ± 46) MPa] and the cast contrast group [VHN_cast= (418 ± 4) HV, TS_cast= (827 ± 25) MPa], significant differences on VHN and TS (P_VHN<0.001, P_TS<0.001) were observed between the 3D corrosion group [VHN_3D= (418 ± 3) HV, TS_3D= (985 ± 30) MPa] and the cast corrosion group [VHN_cast= (375 ± 5) HV, TS_cast= (728 ± 45) MPa]. Significant differences on VHN (P<0.001) were found between the 3D contrast group and the 3D corrosion group. No significant differences on TS (P= 1.000) were found between the 3D contrast group and the 3D corrosion group. Significant differences on VHN and TS (P_VHN<0.001, P_TS<0.001) were observed between the cast contrast group and the cast corrosion group.

Conclusions

The 3D printing Co-Cr alloy has better corrosion resistance than that of the cast Co-Cr alloy. The 3D printing Co-Cr alloy has better stability of the TS and BS than that of the cast Co-Cr alloy. Both kinds of alloys have equal stability of VHN.

Key words: 3D printing, Selective laser melting, Cobalt-chromium alloy, Corrosion resistance, Mechanical stability

Xiaoyu Li, Meihua Zheng, Jieqi Wang, Guicheng Yang, Tao He, Jingsong Li, Song Fan. Comparison of the corrosion resistance and the mechanical stability after corrosion of 3D printing and cast cobalt-chromium alloy[J]. Chinese Journal of Stomatological Research(Electronic Edition), 2016, 10(05): 327-332.

/ / Recommend

Add to citation manager EndNote|Ris|BibTeX

URL: https://zhkqyxyjzz.cma-cmc.com.cn/EN/10.3877/cma.j.issn.1674-1366.2016.05.005

https://zhkqyxyjzz.cma-cmc.com.cn/EN/Y2016/V10/I05/327

Figures/Tables 7

References 21

[1]	李洁银，李瑞男，刘朗，等.铸造和切削钴铬合金与瓷结合强度的比较[J/CD].中华口腔医学研究杂志：电子版，2016，10(1):45-50.
[2]	van Noort N. The future of dental devices is digital[J]. Dent Mater，2012，28(1):3-12.
[3]	Xin XZ, Chen J, Xiang N，et al. Surface characteristics and corrosion properties of selective laser melted Co-Cr dental alloy after porcelain firing[J]. Dent Mater，2014，30(3):263-270.
[4]	ISO. ISO 6892-1. Metallic materials — Tensile testing — Part 1：Method of test at room temperature[S]. Switzerland，2009.
[5]	ISO. ISO 16744. Dentistry — Base metal materials for fixed dental restorations[S]. Switzerland，2003.
[6]	ISO. ISO 10271. Dentistry — Corrosion test methods for metallic materials[S]. Switzerland，2011.
[7]	尹立新，刘卫平，鞠新华，等.一种用激光扫描共聚焦显微镜测量表面粗糙度的方法：北京. CN102927933A[P]，2013-02-13.
[8]	Al-Shammery HA, Bubb N, Youngson CC，et al. The use of confocal microscopy to assess surface roughness of two milled CAD-CAM ceramics following two polishing techniques[J]. Dent Mater，2007，23(6):736-741.
[9]	ISO. ISO 6507-1. Metallic materials — Vickers hardness test — Part 1：Test method[S]. Switzerland，2005.
[10]	ISO. ISO 7438. Metallic materials —Bend test[S]. Switzerland，2005.
[11]	Nascimento ML, Mueller WD, Carvalho AC，et al. Electrochemical characterization of cobalt-based alloys using the mini-cell system[J]. Dent Mater，2007，23(2):369-373.
[12]	Wataha JC. Biocompatibility of dental casting alloys：a review[J]. J Prosthet Dent，2000，83(2):223-234.
[13]	Tufekci E, Mitchell JC, Olesik JW，et al. Inductively coupled plasma-mass spectroscopy measurements of elemental release from 2 high-palladium dental casting alloys into a corrosion testing medium[J]. J Prosthet Dent，2002，87(1):80-85.
[14]	Wataha JC. Alloys for prosthodontic restorations[J]. J Prosthet Dent，2002，87(4):351-363.
[15]	Zeng L, Xiang N, Wei B. A comparison of corrosion resistance of cobalt-chromium-molybdenum metal ceramic alloy fabricated with selective laser melting and traditional processing[J]. J Prosthet Dent，2014，112(5):1217-1224.
[16]	Xin XZ, Chen J, Xiang N，et al. Surface properties and corrosion behavior of Co-Cr alloy fabricated with selective laser melting technique[J]. Cell Biochem Biophys，2013，67(3):983-990.
[17]	Bollen C, Lambrechts P, Quirynen M. Comparison of surface roughness of oral hard materials to the threshold surface for bacterial plaque retention：a review of the literature[J]. Dent Mater，1997，13(4):258-269.
[18]	Wu L, Zhu H, Gai X，et al. Evaluation of the mechanical properties and porcelain bond strength of cobalt-chromium dental alloy fabricated by selective laser melting[J]. J Prosthet Dent，2014，111(1):51-55.
[19]	Koutsoukis T, Zinelis S, Eliades G，et al. Selective laser melting technique of Co-Cr dental alloys：a review of structure and properties and comparative analysis with other available techniques[J]. J Prosthodont，2015，24(4):303-312.
[20]	Takaichi A, Suyalatu, Nakamoto T，et al. Microstructures and mechanical properties of Co-29Cr-6Mo alloy fabricated by selective laser melting process for dental applications[J]. J Mech Behav Biomed Mater，2013，21(1):67-76.
[21]	Lu Y, Wu S, Gan Y，et al. Investigation on the microstructure，mechanical property and corrosion behavior of the selective laser melted CoCrW alloy for dental application[J]. Mater Sci Eng C Mater Biol Appl，2015(49):517-525.

测试指标	生产标准	尺寸(mm)
表面粗糙度及显微硬度	ISO6507?1?2005	φ6 × 2（圆柱体）
拉伸强度	ISO6892?1?2009	标距16、宽2、厚1（哑铃形）
弯曲强度	ISO7438?2005	20 × 1.5 × 1（长方体）

测试指标	生产标准	尺寸(mm)
表面粗糙度及显微硬度	ISO6507?1?2005	φ6 × 2（圆柱体）
拉伸强度	ISO6892?1?2009	标距16、宽2、厚1（哑铃形）
弯曲强度	ISO7438?2005	20 × 1.5 × 1（长方体）

组别	表面粗糙度及显微硬度	拉伸强度	弯曲强度	总计
3D对照组	6	6	6	18
3D腐蚀组	6	6	6	18
铸造对照组	6	6	6	18
铸造腐蚀组	6	6	6	18
总计	24	24	24	72

组别	表面粗糙度及显微硬度	拉伸强度	弯曲强度	总计
3D对照组	6	6	6	18
3D腐蚀组	6	6	6	18
铸造对照组	6	6	6	18
铸造腐蚀组	6	6	6	18
总计	24	24	24	72

组别	试件数（个）	Ra （μm）	VHN (HV)	TS (MPa)	BS (MPa)
3D对照组	6	0.079±0.029	469±4	1010±46	1749±208
3D腐蚀组	6	0.089±0.022	418±3	985±30	1553±275
铸造对照组	6	0.088±0.021	418±4	827±25	1541±158
铸造腐蚀组	6	0.133±0.027	375±5	728±45	1200±345

Please choose a citation manager

Content to export