Massimiliano Guazzato1, Mohammad Albakry, Michael Vincent Swain, Jim Ironside. 1. Biomaterials Science Research Unit, Faculty of Dentistry, University of Sydney, Suite G11, National Innovation Centre, Australian Technology Park, Eveleigh, New South Wales 1430, Australia. mgua4785@mail.usyd.edu.au
Abstract
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.
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.