Home Subscription Services
 
 
Loading
NEW
Sign Up to Receive Quintessence Updates by Email
 

 
The International Journal of Prosthodontics
IJP Home Page
About the Editor
Editorial Board
Accepted Manuscripts
Submit
Author Guidelines
Submission Form
Reprints / Articles
Permissions
Advertising
MEDLINE Search
 
 
 
 
 
FacebookTwitterYouTubeRSS
Quintessence Publishing: Journals: IJP
The International Journal of Prosthodontics

Edited by George A. Zarb, BChD, DDS, MS, MS, FRCD(C)

ISSN 0893-2174

Publication:
July/August 2002
Volume 15 , Issue 4

Back
Share Abstract:

Mechanical Properties of In-Ceram Alumina and In-Ceram Zirconia

Massimiliano Guazzato, BDSa, Mohammad Albakry, BScb, Michael Vincent Swain, BSc, PhDc, Jim Ironside, BDS, MDSd

Pages: 339–346
PMID: 12170847

Purpose: This study compared the mechanical properties of In-Ceram Zirconia and In- Ceram Alumina. Materials and Methods: Ninety-four disks and six bars were prepared with the slip-casting technique. The disks were used to assess biaxial flexural strength (piston on three ball), Weibull modulus, hardness, and fracture toughness with two methods: indentation fracture and indentation strength. The bars were used to measure elastic moduli (Young’s modulus and Poisson’s ratio). X-ray diffraction analysis of the specimens was carried out upon every step of the specimen preparation and of the fractured surfaces. Results: Mean biaxial flexure strengths of In-Ceram Alumina and In- Ceram Zirconia were 600 MPa (SD 60) and 620 MPa (SD 61), respectively. Mean fracture toughness measured according to indentation strength was 3.2 MPa · m1/2 (SD 0.34) for In- Ceram Alumina and 4.0 MPa · m1/2 (SD 0.43) for In-Ceram Zirconia. Mean fracture toughnesses of In-Ceram Alumina and In-Ceram Zirconia measured according to indentation fracture were 2.7 MPa · m1/2 (SD 0.34) and 3.0 MPa · m1/2 (SD 0.48), respectively. X-ray diffraction analysis showed that little phase transformation from tetragonal to monoclinic occurred when the specimens were fractured, supporting the existence of a modest difference of fracture toughness between the two ceramics. Conclusion: No statistically significant difference was found in strength. In-Ceram Zirconia was tougher (P < .01) than In-Ceram Alumina when tested according to indentation strength. However, no significant difference was found in the fracture toughness when tested with the indentation fracture technique. Int J Prosthodont 2002;15:339–346.

Full Text PDF File | Order Article

 

 
Get Adobe Reader
Adobe Acrobat Reader is required to view PDF files. This is a free program available from the Adobe web site.
Follow the download directions on the Adobe web site to get your copy of Adobe Acrobat Reader.
  © 2013 Quintessence Publishing Co, Inc
 

Home | Subscription Services | Books | Journals | Multimedia | Events | Blog
Terms of Use | Privacy Policy | About Us | Contact Us | Advertising | Help | Sitemap | Catalog