Comparison of Dental Prostheses Cast and Sintered by SLM from Co-Cr-Mo-W Alloy

Open access


The article presents the results of a comparative analysis of the metal substructure for dental prosthesis made from a Co-Cr-Mo-W alloy by two techniques, i.e. precision investment casting and selective laser melting (SLM). It was found that the roughness of the raw surface of the SLM sinter is higher than the roughness of the cast surface, which is compensated by the process of blast cleaning during metal preparation for the application of a layer of porcelain. Castings have a dendritic structure, while SLM sinters are characterized by a compact, fine-grain microstructure of the hardness higher by about 100 HV units. High performance and high costs of implementation the SLM technology are the cause to use it for the purpose of many dental manufacturers under outsourcing rules. The result is a reduction in manufacturing costs of the product associated with dental work time necessary to scan, designing and treatment of sinter compared with the time needed to develop a substructure in wax, absorption in the refractory mass, casting, sand blasting and finishing. As a result of market competition and low cost of materials, sinter costs decrease which brings the total costs related to the construction unit making using the traditional method of casting, at far less commitment of time and greater predictability and consistent sinter quality.

[1] Sosnowska-Tomczyk, E. (2007). Metal alloys used in prosthetics - advantages and disadvantages. Twój Przegląd Stomatologiczny. 5, 30-34. (in Polish).

[2] Spiechowicz, E. (1980). Modern laboratory procedures in dental prosthetics. Warszawa: Państwowy Zakład Wydawnictw Lekarskich. (in Polish).

[3] Rosenstiel, S.F., Land, M.F., Fujimoto, J. (2002). Modern prostheses fixed. Lublin. CZELEJ. (in Polish).

[4] Craig, R.G., Powers, J.M., Wataha, J.C. (2000). Dental materials. Wrocław: Wyd. Medyczne Urban & Partner. (in Polish).

[5] Bronzino, J.D. (2000). The Biomedical Engineering HandBook, (2 ed.). Boca Raton: CRC Press LLC.

[6] Karaali, A., Mirouh, K., Hamamda, S. & Guiraldenq, P. (2005). Effect of tungsten 0–8wt.% on the oxidation of Co–Cr alloys. Computational Materials Science. 33(1), 37-43. DOI: 10.1016/j.commatsci.2004.12.025.

[7] Carreiro, A. F. (2005). Evaluation of the castability of a Co-Cr-Mo-W alloy varying the investing technique. Brazilian Dental Journal. 16(1), 50-55. DOI: 10.1590/S0103-64402005000100009

[8] Clemow, A.J.T., Daniell, B.L., (1979). Solution treatment behavior of Co-Cr-Mo alloy. J. Biomed. Mater. Res. 13(2), 265-279. DOI: 10.1002/jbm.820130208.

[9] Marti, A. (2000). Cobalt-base alloys used in bone surgery. Injury, 31(4), D18-D21. DOI:10.1016/S0020-1383(00)80018-2.

[10] Bojar, Z. & Przetakiewicz, W. (1989). Formation of the microstructure of the casting cobalt alloy type Vitalium intended for surgical implants. Mechanik. 9, 419-422. (in Polish).

[11] Bojar, Z. (1992). Analysis of the influence of the structure on the corrosion resistance and fracture mechanism of cobalt-base alloys of type Vitalium. Warszawa: WAT (in Polish).

[12] Gilbert, J.L., Covey, D.A. & Lautenschlager, E.P. (1994). Bond characteristics of porcelain fused to milled titanium. Dental Materials. 10, 134-140. DOI: 10.1016/0109-5641(94)90054-X.

[13] Reyes, M.J., Oshida, Y., Andres, C.J., Barco, T., Hovijitra, S. & Brown, D. (2001). Titanium porcelain system. Part III: effects of surface modification on bond strengths. Biomed. Mater. Eng. 11, 117-136.

[14] Schmage, P., Nergiz, I., Herrmann, W. & Özcan, M. (2003). Influence of various surface-conditioning methods on the bond strength of metal brackets to ceramic surfaces. American Journal of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics. 123(5), 540-546. DOI: 10.1016/S0889-5406(02)56911-0

[15] Surowska, B. (2009). Biomaterials metal and metal-to-ceramics in dental applications. Lublin: Wydawnictwo Politechniki Lubelskiej. (in Polish).

Archives of Foundry Engineering

The Journal of Polish Academy of Sciences

Journal Information

CiteScore 2016: 0.42

SCImago Journal Rank (SJR) 2016: 0.192
Source Normalized Impact per Paper (SNIP) 2016: 0.316

Cited By


All Time Past Year Past 30 Days
Abstract Views 0 0 0
Full Text Views 199 199 36
PDF Downloads 88 88 22