Surface and Subsurface Defects Studies of Dental Alloys Exposed to Sandblasting

doi:10.1007/s40195-019-00884-5

Abstract

Abstract:

The defects created in commercial dental alloys during blasting with alumina particles propelled in compressed air under pressure 0.1 and 0.4 MPa have been studied using positron annihilation spectroscopy, scanning electron microscopy and X-ray diffraction. It was observed that higher pressure causes the increase in roughness and damaged zone range. The type of defects was determined as vacancies on dislocations. The defect concentration decreases with the depth and depends on alloys’ type and applied pressure. The Rutherford backscattering spectroscopy and variable energy positron beam studies indicate shallow alumina deposition in material and show that small pressure of 0.1 MPa is not enough to remove metal surface oxides completely in 60 s in all studied dental alloys.

Key words: Sandblasting, Positron annihilation technique, Dental alloys, Defects analysis, Oxides

Krzysztof Siemek, Mirosław Kulik, Marat Eseev, Mirosław Wróbel, Andrey Kobets, Oleg Orlov, Alexey Sidorin. Surface and Subsurface Defects Studies of Dental Alloys Exposed to Sandblasting[J]. Acta Metallurgica Sinica (English Letters), 2019, 32(10): 1181-1194.

Figures/Tables 14

Table 1 Chemical composition of the alloys used for examinations. In brackets the name of manufacrurer is given

Description	Alloy	Element (wt%)
Description	Alloy	Cr	Ni	Fe	Co	Mo	Si	Mn	Nb
Alloy A	Polycast (Bilkim Ltd. Co.)	26	62	0.15	n/a	10	1.4	n/a	0.35
Alloy B	I-GW (Interdent d.o.o)	24.5	62.5	1.5	n/a	10	1.5	n/a	n/a
Alloy C	Magnum AN (Mesa di Sala Giacomo & C. S.N.C)	24	26	44	0.1	3	3	1.2	0.35
Alloy D	I-MG (Interdent d.o.o)	29.5	n/a	n/a	62.5	5.5	1.2	n/a	n/a

Fig. 1 a SEM images of alumina particles used during sandblasting. b Size distribution of abrasive particles

Fig. 2 XRD pattern for dental alloys before and after sandblasting under the air pressure 0.4 MPa

Fig. 3 SEM images and AFM profiles of each sample before (reference) and after sandblasting under air stream pressure 0.1 and 0.4 MPa. a-d The results for alloys A, B, C and D, respectively

Table 2 Average roughness Ra of dental alloys before (reference) and after sandblasting under air stream pressures 0.1 and 0.4 MPa

Alloy	Average roughness R_a (μm)
Alloy	Reference	Sandblasting 0.1 MPa	Sandblasting 0.4 MPa
A	0.18 (1)	0.88 (4)	1.47 (7)
B	0.11 (1)	0.77 (4)	1.08 (5)
C	0.11 (1)	0.83 (4)	1.03 (5)
D	0.26 (1)	0.85 (4)	0.93 (5)

Fig. 4 S parameter as a function of thickness reduction in compression for commercial dental alloys

Table 3 Positron lifetime (ps) of dental alloys before (annealed) and after sandblasting under air stream pressures 0.1 and 0.4 MPa. The table also includes positron lifetime measurements for samples pressed under 15 ton

Alloy	Positron lifetime (ps)
Alloy	Annealing	Sandblasting 0.1 MPa	Sandblasting 0.4 MPa	Compression load 15 × 10⁵ N
A	116 (1)	159 (1)	167 (1)	171 (1)
B	114 (1)	150 (1)	157 (1)	160 (1)
C	116 (1)	153 (1)	164 (1)	165 (1)
D	115 (1)	147 (1)	148 (1)	150 (1)

Fig. 5 S parameter as a function of etched depth for commercial dental alloys after sandblasting under the air pressure 0.1 (gray points) and 0.4 MPa (white points). The hatched area corresponds to reference samples. The regression lines were fitted using linear regression. The dashed horizontal line represents the value for alumina powder

Table 4 Table includes fitting parameters of S(x) = - Ax + B regression (where x is depth) from Fig. 5 and defected zone ranges after sandblasting under the air pressures 0.1 and 0.4 MPa. The table contains also information about hardness HV10 of reference samples

Alloys	Sandblasting 0.1 MPa			Sandblasting 0.4 MPa			Microhardness HV10
Alloys	A × 10⁴	B × 10	Range (μm)	A × 10⁴	B × 10	Range (μm)	Microhardness HV10
A	4.6 (2)	4.988 (5)	25	2.6 (3)	4.979 (9)	41	232 (7)
B	3.3 (1)	4.974 (2)	21	3.0 (4)	5.009 (9)	35	238 (5)
C	3.4 (2)	4.993 (6)	30	4.5 (2)	5.106 (8)	48	255 (5)
D	5.1 (7)	4.945 (4)	8	4.7 (3)	4.982 (3)	17	425 (6)

Fig. 6 S parameter as a function of energy of positron beam for dental alloys before (black points) and after sandblasting under the air pressure 0.1 (gray points) and 0.4 MPa (white points). Lines show the best fit obtained using VEPFIT program. The upper axis corresponds to mean implantation positron depth. In a also the S parameter profile for polycrystalline Al2O3 was presented as white squares

Fig. 7 Schematic representation of system used in VEPFIT program during fitting. The S1, S2, S3 and Ssurface correspond to S parameter in three layers and surface, respectively. Positron diffusion length in second L2 and third L3 layers was kept as 10 nm, and L1 was fitted parameter

Table 5 Fitting parameters obtained using VEPFIT program for variable energy positron beam measurement curves presented in Fig. 6. The Ssurace, S1 , S2 and S3 correspond to obtained S parameter for surface, first, second and third layers, respectively (see Fig. 7). The L1 is positron diffusion length in the first coating. The d1 and d2 stand for thickness of layers

Alloy	Sandblasting pressure (MPa)	S _surface	S ₁	L₁ (nm)	d₁ (nm)	S ₂	d₂ (nm)	S ₃
A	None	0.460 (1)	0.404 (1)	27 (1)	604 (52)	0.388 (1)
A	0.1	0.448 (1)	0.420 (1)	29 (1)	286 (18)	0.445 (1)	391 (35)	0.405 (1)
A	0.4	0.430 (1)	0.407 (1)	27 (1)	156 (11)	0.427 (1)	281 (14)	0.407 (1)
B	None	0.441 (1)	0.398 (1)	22 (1)
B	0.1	0.434 (1)	0.422 (1)	15 (1)	115 (16)	0.434 (1)	175 (9)	0.404 (1)
B	0.4	0.439 (1)	0.414 (1)	17 (1)	80 (17)	0.431 (2)	207 (20)	0.404 (1)
C	None	0.444 (1)	0.394 (1)	23 (1)	172 (3)	0.452 (1)	315 (4)	0.379 (1)
C	0.1	0.434 (1)	0.418 (1)	24 (1)	134 (3)	0.434 (1)	209 (12)	0.412 (1)
C	0.4	0.429 (1)	0.421 (1)	18 (1)	151 (15)	0.444 (1)	189 (12)	0.412 (1)
D	None	0.437 (1)	0.399 (1)	34 (1)
D	0.1	0.441 (1)	0.412 (1)	8 (1)	79 (9)	0.475 (1)	85 (9)	0.407 (1)
D	0.4	0.440 (1)	0.415 (1)	11 (1)	91 (13)	0.421 (1)	424 (41)	0.414 (1)

Fig. 8 RBS/NR normalized spectra in oxygen peak range as a function of backscattered He energies for alloy B before and after sandblasting under the compressed air pressure 0.1 MPa and 0.4 MPa. The black points correspond to the experimental measurement. Dashed line presents the number of counts scattered only on oxygen atoms obtained using SIMNRA code

Fig. 9 Oxygen concentration from RBS/NR spectra as a function of thickness for dental alloys before and after sandblasting under the compressed air pressure 0.1 MPa and 0.4 MPa obtained using SIMNRA code. The upper axis corresponds to real thickness obtained in experiment in atoms/cm3 unit. The lower axis is the estimated thickness calculated using the density of the alloy in nm unit

References

[1]	H. Hubálková, T. Dostálová, J. Charvát, M. Bartoňová, Prague Med. Rep. 105, 13(2004)
[2]	M. Gargari, F.M. Ceruso, A. Pujia, V. Prete, J. Oral Implantol. 6, 99(2013)
[3]	N. Su, L. Yue, Y. Liao, W. Liu, H. Zhang, X. Li, H. Wang, J. Shen, J. Adv. Prosthodont. 7, 214-223 (2015)
[4]	H. Bruno, S. Filipe, S. Delfim, Mater. Sci. Forum 730-732, 9(2012)
[5]	Y.S. Al Jabbari,S. Zinelis, G. Eliades, Dent. Mater. J. 31, 249(2012)
[6]	A. Fujishima, T. Miyazaki, Y. Fujishima, A. Shiba, J. Jpn. Soc. Dent. Mater. Dev. 16, 227(1997)
[7]	M. Inokoshi, F. Zhang, K. Vanmeensel, J. De Munck, S. Minakuchi, I. Naert, J. Vleugels, B. Van Meerbeek, Dent. Mater. 33, e147(2017)
[8]	T. Derand, H. Hero, Scand. J. Dent. Res. 100, 184(1992)
[9]	M.J. Reyes, Y. Oshida, C.J. Andres, T. Barco, S. Hovijitra, D. Brown, Biomed. Mater. Eng. 11, 117(2001)
[10]	Z. Cai, N. Bunce, M.E. Nunn, T. Okabe, Biomaterials 22, 979 (2001)
[11]	P. Horodek, K. Siemek, J. Dryzek, A.G. Kobets, M. Wróbel, Tribol. Lett. 65, 30(2017)
[12]	G. Carter, J. Bevan, I.V. Katardjiev, M.J. Nobes, Mat. Sci. Eng. A 132, 231 (1991)
[13]	K. Kvam, H. Her?, Biomaterials 22, 1379 (2001)
[14]	E. Dryzek, J. Mater. Sci. 38, 3755(2003)
[15]	S. Zinelis, A. Tsetsekou, T. Papadopoulos, J. Prosthet. Dent. 90, 332(2003)
[16]	X. Zhu, X. Gao, H. Song, G. Han, D.Y. Lin, Mater. Des. 119, 30(2017)
[17]	P. Hautoj?rvi . Positron annihilation spectroscopy of defects in solid. Symposium I: Characterization of Defects in Materials. MRS Proceedings, vol. 82(1986), p. 3
[18]	J. Kansy, Nucl. Instrum. Methods Phys. Res. A 374, 235 (1996)
[19]	P. Horodek, K. Siemek, J. Dryzek, M. Wróbel, Materials 10, 1343 (2017)
[20]	F. B?rner, S. Eichler, A. Polity, R. Krause-Rehberg, J. Appl. Phys. 84, 2225(1998)
[21]	J. Dryzek, K. Siemek, J. Appl. Phys. 114, 074904(2013)
[22]	P. Horodek, A.G. Kobets, I.N. Meshkov, A.A. Sidorin, O.S. Orlov, Nukleonika 60, 725 (2015)
[23]	L.C. Feldman, J.W. Mayer, Fundamentals of Surface and Thin Film Analysis (North-Holland,New York, 1986)
[24]	W.-K. Chu, J.W. Mayer, M.A. Nicolet, Backscattering Spectrometry (Academic Press, New York, 1978)
[25]	J.R. Cameron, Phys. Rev. 90, 839(1953)
[26]	J.M. Campillo Robles, E. Ogando, F. Plazaola, J. Phys. Condens. Matter. 19, 176222(2007)
[27]	Y. Kamimura, T. Tsutsumi, E. Kuramoto, Phys. Rev. B 52, 879 (1995)
[28]	T.E.M. Staab, R. Krause-Rehberg, B. Vetter, B. Kieback, J. Phys. Condens. Matter 11, 1757 (1999)
[29]	S. Abhaya, R. Rajaraman, S. Kalavathi, G. Amarendra, J. Alloys Compd. 620, 277(2015)
[30]	M. Forster, W. Claudy, H. Hermes, J. Major, H.E. Schaefer, M. Koch, K. Maier, H. Stoll, Mater. Sci. Forum 105-110, 1005 (1992).
[31]	M. Noguchi, T. Mitsuhashi, T. Chiba, T. Tanaka, N. Tsuda, J. Phys. Soc. Jpn. 32, 1242(1972)
[32]	J. Dryzek, P. Horodek, Nucl. Instrum. Methods Phys. Res. B 266, 4000 (2008)
[33]	A. Van Veen, H. Schut, M. Clement, A. Kruseman, M.R. Ijpma, J.M.M. De Nijs, Appl. Surf. Sci. 85, 216(1995)
[34]	P. Horodek, K. Siemek, A.G. Kobets, M. Kulik, I. Meshkov, Appl. Surf. Sci. 333, 96(2014)
[35]	K. Nomura, Y. Ujihira, J. Mater. Sci. 25, 1745(1990)
[36]	I.C. Langevoort, I. Sutherland, L.J. Hanekamp, P.J. Gellings, Appl. Surf. Sci. 28, 167(1987)
[37]	C.R. Luna, C. Macchi, A. Juan, A. Somoza, J. Phys. Conf. Ser. 443, 012019(2013)