Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Purpose: To assess the influence of non-ionizing radio frequency signals of magnetic resonance imaging (MRI)
on physical properties of dental alloys and metal-ceramic adhesion.
Materials and Methods: A total of 120 disk-shaped wax patterns (10 mm x 10 mm x 1 mm) were cast in a base
metal alloy (Ni-Cr alloy) and commercially pure titanium (Ti) following the manufacturing recommendation. After
casting, air abrasion and ultrasonic cleaning, feldspathic ceramic was applied and fired according to manufacturers instructions using a standard mold. The specimens were subjected to 3000 thermocycles in distilled
water between 5C and 55C, then veneered alloy specimens were randomly assigned to three groups according
to MRI exposure time: a) 15 min of MRI exposure, b) 30 min of MRI exposure and c) no MRI exposure (control
group). The specimens were subjected to shear loading until failure. A separate set of Ni-Cr and Ti specimens
were prepared, and after exposure to MRI for 15 and 30 min, x-ray diffraction (XRD) analysis, surface roughness,
and Vickers hardness were measured.
Results: Both the alloy type (p < 0.005) and exposure duration (p < 0.005) had a significant effect on the bond
results. While the control group presented the highest bond strength for Ni-Cr and Ti (36.9 1.4 and 21.5 1.6
MPa, respectively), 30 min MRI exposure significantly decreased the bond strength for both alloys (29.4 1.5
and 12.8 1.5 MPa, respectively) (p < 0.05). XRD analysis indicated formation of the crystalline phase as well
as change in crystal size and position for Ni-Cr and Ti after MRI. Compared to the control group where alloys
were not exposed to MRI (Ni-Cr: 0.40 m; Ti: 0.17 m), surface roughness increased (Ni-Cr: 0.54 m; Ti: 1.1
m). Vickers hardness of both alloys decreased after 30 min MRI (Ni-Cr: 329.5; Ti: 216.1) compared to the control group c (Ni-Cr: 356.1; Ti: 662.1), being more significant for Ti (p < 0.005).
Conclusion: Ni-Cr alloy is recommended over Ti for the fabrication of metal-ceramic restorations for patients with
a history of frequent exposure to MRI.
Keywords: adhesion, base alloy, chipping, magnetic resonance imaging, metal-ceramic, roughness, titanium.
J Adhes Dent 2014; 16: 407413
doi: 10.3290/j.jad.a32664
Professor, Metal Physics Laboratory, Physics Department, Faculty of Science, Mansoura University, Egypt. Performed experiments, collected and
analyzed data, wrote the manuscript, discussed the results, commented on
the manuscript at all stages.
Professor, Dental Materials Unit, Clinic for Fixed and Removable Prosthodontics and Dental Materials Science, Center for Dental and Oral Medicine,
University of Zrich, Zurich, Switzerland. Experimental design, analyzed data,
wrote and edited manuscript, discussed the results, commented on the
manuscript at all stages.
El-Bediwi et al
El-Bediwi et al
df
Mean
square
F value
Type of alloy
4247.051
MRI duration
675.52
337.765
132.029 0.000
13.067
5.108 0.009
Total
60
Groups
Mean
SD
Ni-Cr
Control
36.9
1.4
15 min
33.4
1.9
30 min
29.4
1.5
Control
21.5
1.6
15 min
14.8
1.8
30 min
12.8
1.5
Ti
41979.3
Similar to the shear test, the alloy surfaces were initially exposed to either a) 15 min of MRI non-ionizing RF
signal exposure (1.5 T, Magnetom Vision) or b) 30 min
of MRI exposure. The control group was not exposed to
MRI.
Cu-K radiation (l = 1.54056 at 45 kV and 35 mA)
and Ni-filter in the angular range of 2q from 0 to 100 degrees was applied in continuous mode with a scan speed
of 5 degrees/min for surface characterization.
Surface Roughness Test
Surface roughness (Ra) of the control group and the
MRI exposed groups was measured by using a portable
profilometer (Surftest SJ-201 P, Mitutoyo; Tokyo, Japan).
A diamond stylus with a radius of 5 m took three measurements and the average was calculated.
Vickers Hardness Test
The microhardness of each group was calculated using
a digital Vickers microhardness tester (Model FM-7,
Future Tech; Tokyo, Japan), applying a load of 100 g for
5s by means of a Vickers diamond tip.
Statistical Analysis
Statistical analysis was performed using SPSS 11.0
software for Windows (SPSS; Chicago, IL, USA). Bond
strength data (MPa) were submitted to two-way ANOVA
with the bond strength as the dependent variable and
the alloy type and MRI duration as independent variables. For surface roughness and Vickers hardness,
two-way ANOVA and Tukeys tests were used. Due to
significant differences between groups, multiple comparisons were made using Tukeys tests. P-values less
than 0.05 were considered to be statistically significant
in all tests.
RESULTS
Shear Bond Strength
Both the alloy type (p < 0.005) and exposure duration (p < 0.005) had a significant effect on the
bond results. Interaction terms were also significant
Vol 16, No 5, 2014
DISCUSSION
As the use of metal-ceramic FDPS continues in dentistry, additional investigation of the metal-ceramic
bond is indicated to study the possible effect of MRI
on the surface properties of commonly used alloys and
ceramic-alloy adhesion. Fractures or delamination of
the veneering ceramic are costly problems in dentistry,
causing functional and esthetic inconveniences for both
409
El-Bediwi et al
Control (Ni-Cr)
30
20
Ni-Cr
Ni (222)
Ni (220)
40
Ni (311)
Ni (111)
50
Ni (200)
60
Lin (Counts)
10
0
Ti
30
40
50
70
60
70
80
90
100
110
Control
0.40
0.025
15 min
0.51
0.032
30 min
0.54
0.086
Control
0.17
0.021
15 min
0.86
0.01
30 min
1.1
0.014
30
20
Ni (222)
Ni (220)
40
Ni (311)
Ni (111)
Lin (Counts)
50
Ni (200)
60
10
0 30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
110
100
110
80
Ni (111)
40
Ni (311)
30
20
Ni (222)
50
Ni (220)
Lin (Counts)
60
Ni (200)
70
10
0
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
Fig 1 X-ray diffraction patterns of Ni-Cr alloy a) before exposure to MRI (control), b) after
15 min MRI exposure, c) after 30 min MRI exposure. Broad bands denote changes in crystal size and position.
410
El-Bediwi et al
Ti (101)
15 min
341.8
3.8
30 min
329.5
2.9
Control
662.1
61.1
15 min
167.7
36.8
30 min
216.1
11
30
20
10
0
30
40
50
60
Ti (004)
3.7
Ti (112)
Ti (201)
356.1
Ti (110)
Ti
Control
Ti (102)
Ni-Cr
Ti (100)
SD
Lin (Counts)
40
Control (Ti)
Ti (002)
50
Ti (103)
70
80
90
70
80
90
70
80
90
Lin (Counts)
30
20
10
30
40
50
60
40
Lin (Counts)
30
20
10
30
40
50
60
Fig 2
X-ray diffraction patterns of commercially pure Ti a) before exposure to MRI (control), b) after 15 min MRI exposure, c) after 30 min MRI exposure. Changes in intensity of
Ti phase indicate position change.
411
El-Bediwi et al
a limited extent, the shape, size, and orientation of crystalline structure. Since the MR-relevant physical parameters of a metallic material ie, its magnetic susceptibility
and electrical conductivity depend on its microstructure
in a complex way, the two parameters are convenient
indicators of its quality when exposed to MR. Most metallic dental materials can be considered MR compatible
for brain and neck MRI.25 However, in the present study,
changes in the microstructure of Ni-Cr and Ti were observed after exposure to 1 T of MRI non-ionizing RF signal
exposure for 15 and 30 min. The shape of the crystalline
phases and the degree of crystalline structure showed
changes conceivably due to the interaction of the signal of
non-ionizing MRI with the metal structure, Ni-Cr-Mo-Fe-Si,
and other elements constituting the main composition of
the alloys and its effect on atomic aggregation.
Interestingly, the average surface roughness parameter (Ra) value for Ni-Cr and Ti increased after exposure
to MRI for 15 and 30 min. This could be attributed to the
formation of cracks or pits on the alloy surface due to the
effect of non-ionizing MRI. Exposure to MRI causes some
inclusions and weak discontinuity spots or irregularities in
the amorphous matrix of titanium oxides and hydroxides.
Such nucleation sites may result in cracks that increase
surface roughness.13
In general, hardness is defined as the resistance of a
material to plastic deformation under indentation. However, the term hardness may also refer to stiffness, temper, or resistance to scratching abrasion or cutting. In
this study, the Vickers hardness of Ni-Cr alloy decreased
after exposure to MRI for 15 and 30 min. Non-ionizing
MRI signals might have caused movement of ions in the
metal due to the heat produced, which in turn reduced
hardness values. On the other hand, Vickers hardness
of Ti was substantially decreased after exposure to MRI
for either 15 or 30 min. Commercially pure Ti is slightly
paramagnetic and has a few impurities such as iron, oxygen, nitrogen, and other elements. It is possible that the
magnetic field caused matrix defects, thus decreasing its
hardness. Further studies should be conducted to study
the real mechanism responsible for decreased physical
properties of Ti as opposed to Ni-Cr. It is possible that
some heating occurred in the scanner at 1.5 T in the
closed unit with a higher magnetic field than an open unit.
The magnetic properties of investing material should also
be focussed on in further studies.
Overall, the shear bond strength of the ceramic tested
in combination with Ni-Cr alloy demonstrated higher mean
values than in combination with Ti, although the MRI exposure decreased the results for both alloys. The analysis of
surface characteristics should to be supported by atomic
force microscopy in future studies. Nevertheless, the clinical relevance of these findings needs to be verified in clinical, cross-sectional studies.
Considering both microstructural and physical changes
as well as the decreased ceramic adhesion to the metals
after MRI exposure, shielding metal-ceramic restorations
with a non-magnetic material could be recommended to
protect the materials from MRI signals. Even though the
metals are covered with veneering ceramic in FDPs, the
The Journal of Adhesive Dentistry
El-Bediwi et al
CONCLUSIONS
MRI exposure of 15 or 30 min decreased the adhesion
of veneering ceramic to commercially pure Ti and Ni-Cr
alloy but the effect was less on Ni-Cr. MRI exposure increased the roughness and decreased the Vickers hardness of Ni-Cr alloy and commercially pure Ti.
REFERENCES
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
Akagi K, Okamoto Y, Matsuura T. Properties of test metal ceramic titanium alloys. J Prosthet Dent 1992;68:462-467.
Almilhatti H, Giampaolo E, Vergani C, Machado A, Pavarina A. Shear
bond strength of aesthetic materials bonded to Ni-Cr alloy. J Dent
2003;31:205-211.
Al Mutawa N, Sato T, Shiozawa I, Hasegawa S, Miura H. Study of the
bond strength and color of ultralow-fusing porcelain. Int J Prosthodont
2000;13:159-165.
Bagby M, Marshall S, Marshall G. Metal ceramic compatibility: a review
of the literature. J Prosthet Dent 1990;63:21-25.
Betamar N, Cardew G, Van Noort R. Influence of specimen designs on
the microtensile bond strength to dentin. J Adhes Dent 2007;9:159-168.
Ciftci Y, Canay S, Hersek N. Shear bond strength evaluation of different
veneering systems on Ni-Cr alloys. J Prosthodont 2007;16:31-36.
Craig R, Ward M. Restorative dental materials. 10th ed. St. Louis:
Mosby Year Book, 1997:484-499.
DeHoff PH, Anusavice KJ, Wang Z. Three-dimensional finite element
analysis of the shear bond test. Dent Mater 1995;11:126-131.
Della Bona A, Van Noort R. Shear vs. tensile bond strength of resin
composite bonded to ceramic. J Dent Res 1995;74:1591-1596.
De Melo R, Travassos A, Neisser M. Shear bond strengths of a ceramic
system to alternative metal alloys. J Prosthet Dent 2005;93:64-69.
Destine D, Mizutani H, Igarashi Y. Metallic artifacts in MRI caused by
dental alloys and magnetic keeper. Nihon Hotetsu Shika Gakkai Zasshi
2008;52:205-210.
Do Prado R, Panzeri H, Fernandes Neto A, Das Neves F, Da Silva M,
Mendona G. Shear bond strength of dental porcelains to nickel-chromium alloys. Braz Dent J 2005;16:202-206.
El-Bediwi A, Saad M, El-Fallal A. Influence of gamma radiation on morphology structure, electrochemical corrosion behavior and hardness of NiCr
based alloys. Radiation Effects Defects Solids 2009;164:578-583.
14. El-Bediwi A, Saad M, El-Fallal A, El-Khaligy S. Influence of gamma radiation and magnetic resonance imaging radiation on micro-structure,
hardness and electrochemical corrosion behavior of Co-Cr-based dental
alloy. Radiation Effects Defects Solids 2011;166:223-227.
15. Hammad I, Talic Y. Metal-ceramic bond strength test designs critique
and evaluation. Egypt Dent J 1995;41:1341-1346.
16. Hublkov H, Hora K, Seidl Z, Krsensk J. Dental materials and
magnetic resonance imaging. Eur J Prosthodont Restor Dent 2002;10:
125-130.
17. Lopes S, Pagnano V, Rollo J, Leal M, Bezzon O. Correlation between
metal-ceramic bond strength and coefficient of linear thermal expansion
difference. J Appl Oral Sci 2009;17:122-128.
18. Mehuli K, Laus-Sosi M. Metal-ceramic bond: how to improve? Minerva
Stomatol 2009;58:367-373.
19. Olsrud J, Ltt J, Brockstedt S, Romner B, Bjrkman-Burtscher I. Magnetic resonance imaging artifacts caused by aneurysm clips and shunt
valves: dependence on field strength (1.5 and 3 T) and imaging parameters. J Magn Reson Imaging 2005;22:433-437.
20. Oyafuso DK, zcan M, Bottino Ma, Itinoche M. Influence of thermal and
mechanical cycling on the flexural strength of ceramics with titanium or
gold alloy frameworks. Dent Mater 2008;24:351-356.
21. zcan M. Fracture reasons in ceramic-fused-to-metal restorations. J Oral
Rehabil 2003;30:265-269.
22. zcan M, Niedermeier W. Clinical study on the reasons for and location
of failures of metal-ceramic restorations and survival of repairs. Int J
Prosthodont 2002;15:299-302.
23. Pisani-Proenca J, Erhardt Mc, Valandro Lf, Gutierrez-Aceves G, BolanosCarmona M, Del Castillo-Salmeron R, Bottino M. Influence of ceramic
surface conditioning and resin cements on microtensile bond strength
to a glass ceramic. J Prosthet Dent 2006;96:412-417.
24. Shafiei F, Honda E, Takahashi H, Sasaki T. Artifacts from dental casting
alloys in magnetic resonance imaging. J Dent Res 2003;82:602-606.
25. Starcukov J, Starcuk Z, Hublkov H, Linetskiy I. Magnetic susceptibility and electrical conductivity of metallic dental materials and their
impact on MR imaging artifacts. Dent Mater 2008;24:715-723.
26. Suansuwan N, Swain M. New approach for evaluating metal-porcelain
interfacial bonding. Int J Prosthodont 1999;12:547-552.
27. Valandro LF, zcan M, Amaral R, Vanderlei A, Bottino MA. Effect of testing methods on the bond strength of resin to zirconia-alumina ceramic:
microtensile versus shear test. Dent Mater J 2008;27:849-855.
28. Versluis A, Tantbirojn D, Douglas WH. Why do shear bond tests pull out
dentin? J Dent Res 1997;76:1298-1307.
29. Zarone F, Russo S, Sorrentino R. From porcelain-fused-to-metal to zirconia: clinical and experimental considerations. Dent Mater 2011;27:
83-96.
413