Nonprecious alloys for use in fixed prosthodontics:
A literature review
J. Robert Kelly, D.D.S.,* and Thomas C. Rose, D.D.S.
Naval Denial Research Institute. Great Lakes, Ill., and Solana Beach, Calif.
N onprecious alloys are now commonly used for
ceramometal dental restorations. This article reviews
five topics of interest regarding their use: (1) constitu-
ents, (2) physical properties, (3) biocompatibility, (4)
porcelain bonding, and (5) corrosion.
CONSTITUENTS
Nonprecious, or base metal, alloys contain no gold,
silver, platinum, or palladium. The four basic groups
of nonprecious dental alloys are listed in Table I along
with commercial examples that fall within these major
metal groupings. Nickel and cobalt are the primary
metals in most commercially available alloys, with
chromium being the next most predominant metal.
Chromium increases a nickel or cobalt alloy’s resis-
tance to oxidation and also assists in solid solution
hardening.]
Minor elements, presented in Table II, have more
effect on the physical properties of an alloy than does
the relative nickel-cobalt-chromium concentration.’
Generally these elements are used to improve casting
and handling characteristics, porcelain bonding ability,
and corrosion resistance. Silicon is one of the more
important additions, imparting good casting properties
to a nickel alloy and increasing its ductility.’ Beryllium
is also added to nickel alloys to enhance casting of the
metal to high tolerances.’ Beryllium may act by helping
to keep the metals alloyed during casting and also may
provide oxides involved in porcelain bonding.? Manga-
nese, molybdenum, tungsten, and iridium may be
present to aid in corrosion resistance.‘,3 Manganese in
combination with silicon can double the corrosion
resistance of nickel wire at elevated temperatures.4
‘I‘hr opinions expressed herein se those of the authors and cannot be
conrlrued as rellecGng the views of the Navy Department or the
Na\al Swvicc at Ixge. 7TheUSCof commercially available products
dors no~ imply endorsement of these products or preference 10
other similar products on the market.
*l’oscgraduate Research Fellow, Dental Materials.
ttlearnes, I3. Personal communication, 1980.
THE JOURNAL OF PROSTHETIC DENTISTRY
Carbon affects hardness, strength, and ductility of
nickel and cobalt alloys. The exact concentration of
carbon is the most critical concentration of the minor
elements to maintain.’ Excessive carbon, introduced in
either manufacturing or casting, produces a brittle
alloy.* Most other elements are involved in providing
oxides for porcelain bonding and adjusting physical
properties such (ashardness, strength, and coefficient of
thermal expansion as listed in Table 11
PHYSICAL PROPERTIES
Certain physical properties of nonprecious and gold
alloys are compared in Table III. The following
discussion is presented to elaborate on how differences
in these physical properties can affect the handling of
nonprecious alloys for fixed prosthodontics.
Elevated fusion range
The fusion range of nonprecious alloys is generally
100” to 260” C: above that for gold-containing porce-
lain alloys. Because they are cast at higher tempera-
tures, the contraction on cooling of nonprecious alloys
can be much greater than that for gold alloys.5,”
According to Weiss,’ an investment must expand 3.4%
for nickel-chromium alloys to compensate for this
shrinkage. Combined setting and thermal expansion of
phosphate- and silicate-bonded investments is limited
to 1.5% to 2.4%.” Expansion approaching 3.4% can be
achieved only hygroscopically with currently available
investments.5 Consequently, new investments that will
have the requisite expansion within their dimensional
limits need to be developed.
Due to their higher fusion temperatures, nonpre-
cious alloys may have a greater sag resistance than
precious metal alloys at the temperatures required for
porcelain firing.’ Gold alloys experience some flow, or
creep, at temperatures above 980” C.’ Because porce-
lain matures at approximately 816” to 982” C,’ some
chance of distortion is present during the porcelain
firing of gold al10ys.‘~
Less marginal distortion during firing cycles, howev-
er, may not be provided by higher fusing alloys.
363

Table I. Basic classification of nonprecious
Type
I. Nickel, 75% to 80%”
Chromium, 11% to 15%
II. Cobalt, 40% to 70%
Chromium, 20% to 30%
III. Iron, 59%
Chromium, 26%
IV. Titanium
Copper
Data from NIH Conference Proceedings: Alternatives to gold alloys in dentistry, 1977; Phillips, R. W.: Science of Dental Materials. Philadelphia,
1973, W. B. Saunders Co.; and Everhart, J. L.: Engineering Properties of Nickel and Nickel Alloys. New York, 1971, Plenum Press,
Inc.
*Concentrations may vary widely. The exact formulation of individual alloys is guarded by manufacturers for proprietary reasons.
Buchanan et aL6 report less marginal distortion with a
precious alloy than a nonprecious ceramometal. Berto-
lotti and Moffa” suggest that the yet incompletely
understood mechanisms involving sag and marginal
opening involve not only alloy composition but also
past thermal history and activation energy as well.
Lower thermal conductivity
Thermal conductivity in nickel is approximately
four times less than in gold.’ Therefore, even at the
temperatures required to melt these alloys, nonprecious
ingots will not exchange fusion energy with the ease of
gold alloys. As a result all nonprecious ingots need to be
heated at about the same rate to produce a uniform
melt. A large, multiorifice gas torch is preferred for
melting high casting temperature alloys.” A small,
highly oxidized flame (acetylene) may simply spot
burn the alloy before all ingots reach liquidus
conditions.* Such a large flame provides heat volume as
opposed to heat intensity. Induction casting may also be
a preferred method.‘O
Lower specific gravity
Because these nonprecious alloys have nearly half
the specific gravity of gold alloys,7,‘2 casting machines
must generate a higher initial thrust to develop equiv-
alent intramold pressures.‘* This phenomenon may be
further aggravated by the insufficient porosity of some
investments, thus impeding rapid escape of trapped
gases, and by the faster freezing nature of nonprecious
alloys. ” Some induction casting machines do not devel-
op sufficient thrust to cast thin margins.” Wight et al.14
found that the use of vents and sprues of adequate size
eliminated the majority of casting problems they
*Hearnes, E.: Personal communication, 1980.
364
KELLY AND ROSE
alloys by major constituents
Examples
Pentillium, Verabond, Beta, Bio-bond
C + B, Permabond, Litecast B, Phenix Metal, Unibond, Witon-S
Neobond II, Ticonium
Biocast, Formula CS, No-Nickel
Dentillium CB
Experimental
encountered. The work of Preston and Berger’O demon-
strates the additional importance of higher mold and
casting temperatures for complete mold fill.
Increased hardness and strength
Many nonprecious restorations are more difficult to
finish because of their increased hardness.12 Once
polished, however, the finish is reported to outlast that
of a gold alloy in the mouth.15 In addition, finer
margins seem less likely to be lost during finishing of a
nonprecious alloy.15
Nonprecious alloys provide a stiffer structural base
for porcelain due to the metal’s increased strength.
Similarly, cast connections between units may be less
bulky without sacrificing strength. Weiss5 believes that
coping thickness beneath porcelain may be thinned to
as little as 0.1 to 0.2 mm should esthetic considerations
require this. This reduction, however, may be counter-
acted by coating agents added prior to the opaquing of
certain metals.
Greater chemical reactivity
Most elements in nonprecious alloys will undergo
chemical reactions under casting conditions. Molten
nickel alloys are especially sensitive toward carbon,
nickel carbides forming above 1,200” C, and beryllium
carbides above 500” to 750” C.4 All other elements in
nonprecious alloys are suspected of forming carbides
and/or nitrides under casting conditions.*,‘* Thus an
acetylene flame is again contraindicated, its being both
heavily contaminated with carbon combustion products
as well as being too intensely hot.13
Oxidation/reduction reactions will also proceed rap-
idly at elevated temperatures. Silicon becomes highly
volatile above 1,300” C and is reduced to silicon
monoxide.4 Both aluminum and nickel form oxides
MARCH 1983 VOLUME 49 NUMBER 3
NONPRECIOUS ALLOYS

above 400” CL4 Such oxidation/reduction reactions Table II. Minor elements in nonprecious
also may measurably change the alloy’s mechanical dental alloys
properties.‘” ____-- ____-.-..--~__-_____
Element Concentration Properties
A film, or slag, of reaction products always forms
around nonprecious ingots during casting.” This slag Beryllium l-Z% Allows casting to
keeps the ingots apart when molten, further decreasing high tolerances,
imprcoves
heat transmission between ingots. The ingots will
mailtabrlity and
retain much of their original shape, inside the slag ductiirty, and
shells, even when molten and ready to cast.’ This slag reduces fusion
residue, being much lighter than the alloy, primarily temperature; flux
remains in the crucible during casting. A short melting to kr*:p elements
alloy.:d
time (10 to 15 seconds) will help to minimize these
Iron 0.2-2.5’;: Hardrrs alloy and
chemical changes.* Nickel is attacked by sulfuric acid 0xidc.s for
of pickling solutions so castings should be cleaned with porcelain bond
air abrasives or “live steam.“5, ‘(’ Iridium 0.2-l% Soluttott hardentng;
c>xi&i for bond-
Volatility ing
Tin 0.2-l% Solution hardenrng;
Table IV lists the volatility of seven minor alloy oxtdvs for bond-
elements relative to nickel and gold (the volatility of ing
which is about equal at their respective casting temper- Manganese 0.5-6% Corrosion resistance
atures).” Depending on their vapor pressure, all alloy tdeoxidtzeri;
solutron
constituents will vaporize to a certain degree during hardening
casting. Prolonged or intense heating can create a new Silicon 0.5-3.5s Atds castability and
alloy by evaporation of important minor elements.” increases ductility;
Nonprecious alloys are much more sensitive to small solution
changes in constituents than are gold alloys.‘, 4,” ltardening, oxides
for bonding
Aluminum l.l-6% Solution hardening
Heated body radiation
Titanium 0.02-l% Soluttc~n hardening;
All metals glow when heated.9 At a given tempera- oxid:~ tor bond-
ture gold and nonprecious alloys will emit at different ir1g
Boron 0.5:: Wtdrn-. melting
wavelengths and intensities of light.’ Because some
range; corrosion
induction casting machines use optical pyrometers to resistance
measure a molten metal’s temperature, they may have tdeoGdrzer1:
to be recalibrated for a nongold alloy.’ so!u?ron
hardttnrng
BIOCOMPATIBILITY Molybdenum 2-12s Coefficient of
thermal expansion;
Many metals may be biologically active in one or all corn lston
of three chemically distinct states: (1) the pure metal as resistance; oxrdes
an ingot or dust (many metals are vastly more reactive tar bonding
as dust [for example, nickel becomes flammable]), (2) Tungsten 6-7% Coefhc rent of
thermal expansion;
organometallic and metallic salt compounds, and (3)
corrosion
alloys.” However, not all chemical states of a certain reri%;tance
metal appear to be equally hazardous.‘* Iridium 0.15%, Corrosion resistance;
Nonprecious metal use may conceivably expose modulus ot
dental personnel to a metal in all three of these elasticity
Carbon 0.050.4% Strength, hardness,
chemical states. Pure metal vapor evolved during and ductility
casting may undergo chemical reactions and/or con-
dense as dust.3 Organometallic compounds and metal Daub from Phillips, R. W.: Science of Dcnrai ?\~l.ctcr~& Philadel-
salts form during corrosion, both in the mouth and phid, 1973, W. B. Saunders Co.; NIH C!onfrrvnct~ proceedings:
.\lternativer to gold alloys in dentistry, 1977, ant: Everhart, .J L.:
Enqineering Properties of Nickel and Nickel ~\ilov~ New York,
‘I tr;irnes. E.: Personal communication. 1980. 1971, Plenum Press. Inc.

THE JOURNAL OF PROSTHETIC DENTISTRY 365

 KELLY AND ROSE

Table III. Comparison of basic physical Table V. Toxicity of elements in nonprecious

properties of gold and nonprecious alloys
ceramoalloys Element Toxicity data’**
Gold Nonprecious
Beryllium Carcinogen: animal positive
Property ceramoalloy ceramoalloy
Highly toxic as dust
Fusion range 935-1,200” c 1,150-1,400” c OSHA standard: 0.002 mg/m) air
Thermal conduc- 3.15 W/cm “C 0.89 W/cm “C Nickel Carcinogen: animal positive
tivity (gold vs. Occupational exposure: 0.015 mg/m’ air
nickel) Chromium Carcinogen: animal suspected
Specific gravity 18.3 gm/cc 7-9 gm/cc OSHA standard: 1 mg/m3 air
Hardness 140-200 kg/mm’ 240-400 kg/mm* Tin All organic compounds toxic
(Brinell) Elemental tin low toxicity
Ultimate tensile 5.098 kg/cm’ 6,500-10,000 kg/cm’ Tolerance: 0.1 mg/m3 air (elemental)
strength Boron Halogen compounds highly toxic
Elongation 5% 9-12% Molybdenum Elements nontoxic
Modulus of 95,000 mn /m2 195,000 mn/m* Compounds low toxicity
elasticity Tolerance: 5 mg/m) air (trioxide)
Iron Essentially nontoxic
Tolerance: 10 mg/m’ air (oxide fumes)
Indium Low toxicity
Table IV. Vapor pressure of elements at Threshold limit: 0.1 mg/m’ air
casting temperatures Manganese Low toxicity for element and
compounds
Vapor pressure OSHA standard: 5 mg/m) air (all)
Element (mm Hg) Tungsten Low toxicity
NTIS occupational exposure: 5 mg/m’
Nickel 1
air
Gold 1
Iridium Probably low toxicity
Iron 1
Silicon Low toxicity
Beryllium 10
Tolerance: 10 mg/m3 air
Tin 40
Aluminum Essentially nontoxic
Chromium 10
Titanium Essentially nontoxic
Aluminum 100
Manganese 100 Data from Hawley, G. G., editor: The Condensed Chemical
Iridium 300 Dictionary. New York, 1977, Von Nostrand Reinhold Co.; and
NIOSH: Registry of Toxic Effects of Chemical Substances. DHEW
Data from Weast, R. C., editor: Handbook of Chemistry and
(NIOSH) Publ. No. 79-100. Cincinnati, 1978.
Physics, ed 55. Cleveland, 1974, Chemical Rubber Co.

during casting. I7 The alloyed metal may exist as both
an ingot (in the mouth) and as dust (in the labo-
ratory).
Table V lists known toxicity data for many elements
found in nonprecious metals. Of these listed, only
nickel and beryllium are positive animal carcino-
gens.18,19These are only known to be carcinogenic as
pure elements and in certain compounds such as nickel
carbonyl, nickel oxide, and beryllium oxide.‘* The
following discussion focuses primarily on nickel and
beryllium toxicity as related to the dental environ-
ment.
Elemental nickel and many nickel compounds (nota-
bly nickel carbonyl) are extremely effective in produc-
ing rhabdomyosarcomas. 20*2’Workers in nickel refin-
eries are reported to suffer increases in both lung and
nasopharyngeal carcinomas.22~23Drinking water con-
taining 5 ppm of nickel was reported to decrease litter
size and increase mortality in rats.24 Most nickel
compounds may not be shipped on passenger aircraft
and are considered inhalation hazards in concentra-
tions of approximately 0.001 to 0.1 mg/m3 of air.3
According to Pedersen et a1.,25the average time
interval between exposure to nickel vapors and the
appearance of nasal tumors was 31.6 years. In only one
case was the appearance in less than 20 years. The
absence of epidemiologic data on nickel-related health
problems of laboratory technicians should, therefore,
be interpreted with caution.
The more immediate biocompatibility risk with
nickel alloys seems to be allergic contact dermatitis.
Nickel produces more contact dermatitis than all other
metals combined.26-28Partial denture frameworks con-
taining as little as 1.5% nickel have been reported to
cause contact dermatitis.29j30 Reactions to nickel have
occurred in the mouth adjacent to the metal,“*3’ at
extraoral sites in the vicinity of chromium-plated or
stainless steel jewelry,” and at locations unrelated to

366 MARCH 1983 VOLUME 49 NUMBER 3

NONPRECIOUS ALLOYS
direct metal exposure.‘?, ” Reactions noted include
edema of eyelids; swollen, fissured lips; and chronic
eczema of cheeks and palms3”
In perspective, allergies to nickel are expected in
only 5% to 8% of the population.* Most people live
safely with nickel-containing alloys while cooking and
wearing eyeglasses or watches. Nickel is part of many
common alloys including brass and one type of stainless
steel.“’ According to Huget’” the routine use, handling,
and wearing of nickel-containing items have never been
implicated as a cause of cancer.
Beryllium has come under scrutiny in the dental
literature due to the hazard of inhaling beryllium and
beryllium compounds as dust.” Beryllium is considered
to be toxic in the air at 0.002 mg/m3,3 is a carcinogen,
and is carcinogenic in certain compounds (for example,
BeO.,).” Some beryllium will be vaporized during
casting, can undergo reactions and/or condense as dust,
and may pose a threat in poorly ventilated casting
areas.
Moffa et al.” sampled air from the breathing zones
of laboratory workers while they ground and polished
beryllium-containing alloys. They were unable to find
beryllium in any of the samples obtained while proper
ventilation and exhaust equipment was operating.
Methods for the safe handling of beryllium-containing
alloys have been published by the American Dental
Association (ADA)“’ and the National Institute for
Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH).“’
Toxicologic research has been performed with nick-
el-chromium implants in animals and in tissue cul-
tures. Moffa et al.” showed that subcutaneous implants
of nickel-chromium alloys were just as well tolerated as
gold implants in rabbits. Woody et al.” subjected tissue
cultures to nickel-chromium powders obtained by wet-
milling and to whole castings. Cultures exposed to
whole castings showed no adverse cellular changes.
Cultures containing nickel-chromium powders did
show zones of lysis and cell alteration. Piliero et al.?”
studied implants of various gold alloys and nonprecious
metal alloys in hamsters. The hamsters exhibited no
weight or behavioral changes. Gross examinations
revealed no inflammation, surface corrosion, or histo-
pathologic reactions.
PORCELAIN BONDING
The porcelain-metal bond is thought to result from
both chemical and mechanical forces.“’ Numerous
researchers believe that retention is related to the
formation of metal oxides,““.“’ which can act by facili-
tating wettin$’ and by dissolving into and interacting
THE JOURNAL OF PROSTHETIC DENTISTRY
chemically with the porcelain.‘” ” Mechanical forces
are thought to play a subsidiary, yet real, role in
porcelain-metal coupling,46 -I-especially those compres-
sive forces developed due to the purposeful mismatch-
ing of porcelain and metal coefhciems of thermal
expansion.’
Both the chemical and metallurgic complexity of
nonprecious alloys vastly complicates any uniform
understanding of this bond. Besides known elemental
differences among nonprecious alloys, as seen in Tables
I and II, FairhursP discovered that microstructural
variations also occur. Each of 15 different alloys he
tested had a different metallurgic mrarostructure.
Microstructural differences are known IO affect prop-
erties such as ductility and strength and may also play a
role in porcelain bonding and corrosion.
Data relating chromium oxide formation to bond
strengths further add to the confusion. 1,ubovich and
Goodkind“’ and McLean and Scedi” report that chro-
mium oxides might weaken the porcelain bond. I’air-
burst’” suggests ,just the opposite, and ?p,fofl’a”’ states
that restricting speculation to the formation ot chromi-
um oxides “would appear to be an oversimplification of
a rather complex phenomenon.”
Bonding agents add variables to the puzzle by
producing a variety of new adherence i;one reaction
products.” Depending on the specific alloy-porcelain
system studied, they may either broaden or suppress
the width of metal-ceramic interactions.’ i:arter et al.“’
reported that adherence was increased only indirectly
by the bonding agent used since additional oxides were
formed during its application. Both Anrhony et al.?
and Goeller et al.” found that bonding mav actually be
weakened in the presence of surface agtnts. In addi-
tion: specific ceramic-metal combinations appear to
perform significantly better than others in laboratory
tests.” “’
No uniformly accepted method for determining bond
strengths seems to have evolved. Three basic types of
tests are reported. Two methods use the hending of flat,
porcelainized metal strips: one bent in a transverse
flexure”’ and one bent by twisting the strip through its
long axis.;’ The third method, the Shel!-Nielson pull-
through test? involves pushing or pulling a metal rod
through a doughnut of porcelain vitrified to the rod.“”
11 combination of four tests has recently been sug-
gested for determining porcelain-alloy compatibility by
the ADA Council on Dental hlaterials. Instruments
and Equipmen.‘“: (1) thermal expansion, (2) thermal
shock, (3) three-point loading or flcxure, and (4)
multiple porcelain firings of long-span fixed partial
dentures. It is hoped that this combination will prove to
be predictive of clinical successesor failjircs of porce-
367

lain-alloy systems. These tests are now required as part
of the Council’s Acceptance Program for Alloys for
Cast Dental Restorative and Prosthetic Devices.56
Proper metal surface roughness may be more impor-
tant to bond strengths with nonprecious metals than
with gold alloys. 57Carpenter and Goodkind5’ suggest
that greater wetability of the nonprecious metal by
porcelain may account for this observation. Another
explanation is offered by Carter et a1.,53who found that
gritblasting samples improved adhesion. They specu-
late that the resultant increase in surface area produced
more oxides per unit area as well as a greater area for
mechanical interlocking.
Wight et al. 59found that opaquing temperature and
degassing time affected bond strengths with the non-
precious alloy they tested. By prolonging degassing
times, they decreased the bond strength by almost 20%.
They also reported that neither the degassing tempera-
ture nor the direction of surface preparation had any
effect on bond strength.
COBROSION
Four basic mechanisms are recognized for corrosion
of metals in the oral cavity? (1) uniform attack, (2)
crevice attack (where oxygen circulation is poor), (3)
pitting attack (establishing self-perpetuating electrolyt-
ic cells), and (4) galvanic attack. All four of these
mechanisms may act in concert, vastly complicating a
detailed understanding of their relative importance.
These new alloys are complex both chemically and
metallurgically.’ By themselves chromium and cobalt
are easily corroded.4 When they are combined proper-
ly, these elements can passivate an alloy (allowing a
thin oxide film to form), decreasing its rate of corro-
sion.4 Hodges60reported that an alloy rich in molybde-
num was particularly sensitive to chloride and that
beryllium may decrease the ability of nickel and cobalt
to passivate.
Many metals are chemically reactive toward free
ions such as chloride and sulfide present in saliva or
foods.” Nickel alloys have been found to passivate at
low chloride ion concentrations yet are subject to
pitting at higher concentrations.6’ This pitting may not
be a problem at the chloride concentrations found in
saliva.60 Oxygen p 1ay s a role in chloride attack of
gold-based alloys in saliva-equivalent solutions but has
no such role with chloride attack of base metal alloys.@
These isolated ion studies are important but do not yet
extrapolate to clinical situations. Even less is known
about the nonprecious alloys’ activity toward proteins,
enzymes, organic acids, and other constituents of
plaque.60
Galvanic currents between dissimilar metals may
368
KELLY AND ROSE
cause tissue damage and corrosion.63 According to
Marek64 nonprecious alloys used for fixed prostheses,
however, may be less galvanically active than gold.
Marek found that anodic destruction of low-copper
amalgams in vitro was less severe with nonprecious
alloys than either gold alloys or high-copper amal-
gams.
Laboratory tests are not yet sophisticated enough to
predict the clinical behavior of these alloys. The few
controlled clinical studies available speak encouraging-
ly of tarnish resistance within their limited observation
times of 4 years or less.65-67The American Dental
Association’s criteria for acceptance now require this
type of study.
CLINICAL DISCUSSION
Adopting a new and complex technology is probably
never accomplished in a rational, lock-step manner.
Precipitous increases in gold prices hastened the tran-
sition to nonprecious metals and created more confu-
sion about these alloys’ suitability than may have been
warranted. Many nonprecious alloys are being specifi-
cally designed for ceramometal restorations. In certain
ways these new alloys are superior to traditional gold
metals adapted for porcelain use. However, we have
also seen launched a large, uncomrolled experiment the
results of which may not be completely understood for
years. The following discussion briefly reviews the
major positive and negative aspects of nonprecious
alloy clinical use.
Nonprecious alloys can be cast with acceptable
accuracy.” In addition, increased strength and fusion
properties of nonprecious alloys may make them the
preferred metal for more rigid, more thermally stable
porcelain substructures, especially for multiple-unit
restorations.5 Porcelain frameworks cast in nonpre-
cious metals can also be less bulky interproximally
than gold alloys.5
Patients may be more comfortable with these alloys
due to their decreased thermal transmission.’ Their
color provides a neutral background for esthetic porce-
lain application.* Some of these new alloys may be less
active galvanically than gold.64 The few controlled
clinical studies available speak well of nonprecious
alloys’ corrosion resistance.65V67Once polished, the
finish on nonprecious restorations can outlast that on
gold units. I5 Porcelain bonding ability of nonprecious
alloys probably equals that of gold alloys on properly
designed restorations. 36 Dentists have inserted thou-
sands of units of nonprecious restorations with consis-
tently good success.5,68
*Hearnes, E.: Personal communication, 1980
MARCH 1983 VOLUME 49 NUMBER 3
NONPRECIOUS ALLOYS
Obviously the total nonprecious alloy picture
involves some unknowns and qualifications. These
alloys are complex chemically and metallurgically.‘~4
Their laboratory procedures require more precision
than gold alloys, especially during casting.‘O In fact, a
dentist’s choice of laboratory may be more important
than the choice of alloy. Currently available invest-
ments are just able to provide proper expansion.5 In
addition, the handling characteristics of one alloy may
be very different from those of another.’
Elemental beryllium and nickel dust and certain of
their compounds are serious health hazards in air
concentrations as low as 0.002 mg/m3.3~‘8 More
research needs to be performed to determine the
concentrations of nickel and beryllium compounds in
casting and finishing areas of dental laboratories.
Nickel causes more allergic contact dermatitis than any
other meta1.‘5-” Patients should be questioned about
nickel sensitivity. Further, such sensitivity should be
included in any differential diagnosis following soft
tissue changes after crown placement.
SUMMARY
The physical properties of nonprecious alloys can
differ significantly from those of alloys containing a
high percent of gold. Relationships among constituents,
physical properties, and handling characteristics of
base metal alloys were surveyed.
Toxicity of nickel, beryllium, and their compounds
was discussed with attention given to the dental envi-
ronment. Allergic contact dermatitis appears to be a
health risk to certain patients from nickel-containing
prostheses. Beryllium dust is apparently not a hazard
in properly ventilated and exhausted grinding and
polishing areas. Lack of data on nickel-related health
problems in dental laboratory workers should be inter-
preted with caution.
This article also reviewed research on porcelain
bonding and corrosion of nonprecious alloys. Although
this research cannot yet predict an alloy’s porcelain
bonding behavior in mouths, little or no porcelain bond
problems have been reported. A few controlled clini-
cal studies report little corrosion in up to 4 years.
REFERENCES
1. l.;rrrh;rrt, J L.: Engineering Properties of Nickel and Nickel
Alloys New York. 1071, Plenum Press, Inc.
? Phillips. R. W.: Science of Dental Materials. Philadelphia,
1973. u’. 1%Saunders (:<I.
3. Il.~wley, (;. G., editor: The Condensed Chemical Dictionary.
Nrw I’ork, 1977. Van Nostrand Reinhold Co.
4 Kubashcwki. 0.. and Hopkins, B. E.: Oxidation of Metals and
.4lloyc. rd 3. New York, 1962, Academic Press, Inc.
5. Weiss, I’. .I.: New desiqn parameters: Utilizing the proper-
THE JOURNAL OF PROSTHETIC DENTISTRY
ties ot Ni-C:r super alloys. Dent (:lin U ,rih :1m 21:740.
1977
6. Buchanan, W. T., &are. C. W., and Turner, K. ‘4.: The clfec,t
of repeated firings and strength on marginal distortion in IWO
ceramometal systems. J PROWHET DENT 45:%12. I98 I,
RIofla, J. P.: Physical and mechanical propwties 01 gold and
hase metal alloys. NIH Conference Proceedings: z\lternarivw u,
gold alloys in dentistry. January 1977, pp 8 I -93.
8. Tuccillo, J. J , and Neilsen, J. P.: (1reep ano ..te properries of :I
porcelain gold alloy. .J Dent Res 46:5TO. 1’10~
9. We.lst. R. (Z., editor: Handbook of (:ht:mjc:r + ,ind Phvsirh, etl
ii. Cleveland, 1974. Chemical Rubber (;(I
IO. Preston. .J. L).. and Berger, R.: Lnbur,ltor\ \ iriahleh allbcring
c~cramome&~lalloys. Dent Clin North Am 21:7 I-._ 107Y
I I. Berlolotti. R. I,.. rind Moffa, ,J I’. (:rwp z.~tt’ of porwl,~in-
bond~no, allov~ ai ;t function of tcmprr,! i:w J I)vnr RF
59:ZOhZ. 19x0.
12. (Craig. R. (;. Restorative Dental >la~cr~;lis. cd 6. SI, I,oui\,
1980. Thr (:. V. Mosby Co., p 327.
13. As~ilr, K.. Melting and casting of alloy\ “u’lfl Confercncc
Procrrdings. ,\lternarives to gold allo\\: in d:mticlrv J.muar\
1077, pp 166.185.
14. Wighi, T ,I.. (;rlsius, R. J.. ,md (;au$cl,. K, C\,‘. Evaludiion
of three \arubles aflecting the casting: of I) w rnet,d .~Ilo\s.
J PKWTHE.1 ]~)EN.I. 43:415, 1980.
1.5. Hollman, E. 1.. Finishing and soldering basr and gold alloys.
NIH Conference Proceedings: Altcmativr~ :(a gold alloys in
dentistry. January 1977. pp 203-?I3
16. Tuccillo. J. J ~ Lichrenherger, H., and Nirlscn, J. P.: Compo-
cition stability of gold base dental allo\$ fcrr ~lilferrm melting
techniques. J Dent RCF 53:11?7. 1974.
17. Swll~. J. I,.: Fundamenlals of Co~rozro~~ ()wforti, 1966,
Pergamon Pwss. Inc.
18. NIOSH: Registry 01 Toxic Elferls of Chrmit.il Substanvrs.
DHEW (NIOSH) Publ. No. 79-100. Cincintlaii. 1978.
IO. NIOSH Criteria Document on Beryllium. .N,icwn;rl ‘I’echnwal
Information Frrvice No. PB 210806. FYI‘S l’uhl. Dissrmina-
lion, NIOSH. Cincinnati, 1979.
20. Furs~, 1.. I-IX-to. R. T., and Srhlauder. Xi I:xpcrimental
c,hrmotherapy trt mckel-induced lihrosarc~ma~. ()ncology
26:422, 1972.
21. Mitchell. I) I;., Shankwalker. (;. H.. anti :Sh;tzcr, S.. I)rcer-
mining the rumorigenici~y of dental malerl,ds J Drnt RPS
39:1023. 19oc.
22. Doll, R.: Can:er of the lung and noqe in nitkt.1 workcr~. Br J
Ind Med 15:217, 1958.
23. Sutherland, R.. B.: Respiratory cancer mar-i*dily in workers
employed in an Ontario mckel refinery. Repot: of Ihr Division
of Industrial IHygiene, OnLario Drpt of Ilealth. Toronto.
1959.
24. Schroeder. H. A.. and Mitchner, %I.. l‘ox~< r(li~a< ut rrat’r
rlrmrntu on thr reproductive rvstcm of ml < ,~nd rats. Arch
Environ Hca1.h 23:102, 1971.
2.5. Prdersrn, E.. IHogetueic, A. C., and Andersur!. A.: Cancer <II
the respiratory organs among workers a~ a nwkrl refinery in
Norway. Inc J Cancer 12:32, 1973.
26. Gaul, I,. E.: ).lctal sensitivity in eczema on the hands, degree
and range of Tensitivity to chromium and ILL sompounds. Ann
Allergy 11:751<, 1953.
27. (:alnan, C. I). Nickel dermatitis. Br J i)rrmarol 683X?‘),
I956
28. Fisher, A. A (:ontact Dermaritis. Philadrlphra. 196-. I,ea Sr
Febigrr.
369

29. Dreissler, K. J., and Sheets, G. R.: Contact stomatitis due to a
denture in a metal sensitive patient. Calif West Med 57~354,
1942.
30. Wood, J. F.: Mucosal reaction to cobalt-chromium alloy. Br
Dent J 136:423, 1974.
31. Levantine, A. V., and Bet&y, F. R.: Sensitivity to metal dental
plate. Proc R Sot Med 67~1007, 1974.
32 Barranco, V. P., and Solomon, H.: Eczematous dermatitis
caused by internal exposure to nickel. South Med J 66~447,
1973.
33. Brendlinger, D. L., and Tarsitano, J. J.: Generalized dermati-
tis due to sensitivity to a chrome-cobalt removable partial
denture. J Am Dent Assoc 81:392, 1970.
34. Huget, E.: Dental alloys: Biological considerations. NIH
Conference Proceedings: Alternatives to gold alloys in dentist-
ry. January 1977, pp 139-157.
35. Moffa, J. P., Guckes, A. D., Okawa, M. T., and Lilly, G. E.:
An evaluation of nonprecious alloys for use with porcelain
veneers. Part II. Industrial safety and biocompatibility.
J PROSTHETDENT 30~432, 1973.
36. Council on Dental Materials and Devices: Guide to Dental
Materials and Devices, ed 8. Chicago, 1976, American Dental
Association,
37. Woody, R. D., Huget, E. F., and Horton, J. E.: Apparent
cytotoxicity of base metal casting alloys. J Dent Res 56:739,
1977.
38. Piliero, S. J,, Carson, S., LiCalzi, M., Pentel, L., Piliero, J. A.,
Kaufman, E. G., Schulman, A., and Willigan, D. A.: Biocom-
patibility evaluation of casting alloys in hamsters. J PROSTHET
DENT 41:220, 1979.
39. Stein, R. S., and Kurwata, M.: A dentist and a dental
technologist analyze current ceramometal procedures. Dent
Clin North Am 21:729, 1977.
40. Shell, J. S., and Nielson, J. P.: Study of the bond between gold
alloys and porcelain. J Dent Res 41:1424, 1962.
41. Kelly, M., Asgar, K., and O’Brien, W. J.: Tensile strength
determination of the interface between porcelain fused to gold.
J Biomed Mater Res 3:403, 1969.
42. Leone, E. F., and Fairhurst, C. W.: Bond strength and
mechanical properties of dental porcelain enamels. J PROSTHET
DENT 18:155, 1967.
43. O’Brien, W. J., and Ryge, A.: Relationship between molecular
force calculations and observed strengths of enamel-metal
interfaces. J Am Ceram Sot 47:5, 1964.
44. Lautenschlager, E. P., Greener, E. H., and Elkington, W. E.:
Microprobe analysis of gold-porcelain bonding. J Dent Res
48:1206, 1969.
45. VonRadnoth, M. S., and Lautenschlager, E. P.: Metal surface
changes during porcelain firing. J Dent Res 48:321, 1969.
46. Lavine, M. H., and Custer, F.: Variables affecting the strength
of bond between porcelain and gold. J Dent Res 45:32,
1966.
47. Pask, J. A., and Fulrath, R. M.: Fundamentals of glass-
to-metal bonding: VIII. Nature of wetting and adherence.
J Am Ceram Sot 45~592, 1962.
48. Fairhurst, C. W.: Metal surface preparation and bonding agent
in PFM systems. NIH Conference Proceedings: Alternatives to
gold alloys in dentistry. January 1977, pp 255-274.
49. Lubovich, R. P., and Goodkind, R. J.: Bond strength studies of
precious, semiprecious, and nonprecious ceramic-metal alloys
with two porcelains. J PROSTHETDENT 37~288, 1977.
50. McLean, J. W., and Seed, I. R.: Bonding of dental porcelain to
370
KELLY AND ROSE
metal: II. The base-metal alloy/porcelain bond. Trans Br
Ceram Sot 72:235, 1973.
51. MolTa, J. P.: Reader’s round table. J PROSTHETDENT 31:692,
1974.
52. Anusavice, K. J., Ringle, R. D., and Fairhurst, C. W.:
Adherence controlling elements in ceramic-metal systems. II.
Nonprecious alloys. J Dent Res 56~1053, 1977.
53. Carter, J. M., Al-Mudafar, J., and Sorensen, S. E.: Adherence
of a nickel-chromium alloy and porcelain. J PROSTHETDENT
41:167, 1979.
54. Anthony, D. H., Burnett, A. P., Smith, D. L., and Brooks,
M. S.: Shear test for measuring bond in cast gold alloy-
porcelain composites. J Dent Res 49:27, 1970.
55. Goeller, I., Meyer, J. M., and Nally, J. N.: Comparative study
of three coating agents and their influente on bond strength of
porcelain-fused-to-gold alloys. J PROSTHET DENT 28~504,
1972.
56. Council on Dental Materials, Instruments and Equipment:
Association report: Porcelain-metal alloy compatibility, criteria
and test materials. J Am Dent Assoc 102:71, 1981.
57. King, B. W., Tripp, H. P., and Dackworth, W. H.: Nature of
adherence of porcelain elements to metal. J Am Ceram Sot
42:504, 1959.
58 Carpenter, M. A., and Goodkind, R. J.: Effect of varying
surface texture on bond strength of one semiprecious and one
nonprecious ceramo-alloy. J PROSTHET DENT 42:86, 1979.
59 Wight, T. A., Bauman, J. C., and Pelleu, G. B.: An evaluation
of four variables affecting the bond strength of porcelain to
nonprecious alloy. J PROSTHETDENT 37:570, 1977.
60. Hodges, J. R.: Corrosion resistance of gold and base alloys.
NIH Conference Proceedings: Alternatives to gold alloys in
dentistry. January 1977, pp 106-138.
61. Hoar, T. P., and Mears, D. C.: Corrosion resistant alloys in
chloride solutions: Materials for surgical implants. Proc R Sot
[A] 294486, 1966.
62. Huget, E. F., Vermilyea, S. G., and Modawar, F. A.:
Electrochemical profiles of crown and bridge alloys. J Dent
Res 59(Special issue A):527, 1980 (Abstr No. 1031).
63. Bradley, P. F.: Electrolyte action around bone pins in the
“halo” frame. Br J Oral Surg 7~69, 1969.
64. Marek, M.: Galvanic interactions between dental amalgam and
other restorative materials. J Dent Res 59(Special issue A):527,
1980.
65. Harcourt, H. J., Riddihough, M., and Osborne, J.: The
properties of nickel-chromium casting alloys containing boron
and silicon. Br Dent J 129:419, 1970.
66. Moffa, J. P.: Should I be using base metal alloys instead of
gold-based alloys? Proc Conf Dent Mater Dev. Open Session
FDI Comm Dent Mater Inst Equip Ther. Oct. 28, 1975, pp
35-54.
67. Landesman, H. M., de Gennaro, G. G., and Martinoff, J. T.:
An 18-month clinical evaluation of semiprecious and nonpre-
cious alloy restorations. J PRO.STHETDENT 46~161, 1981.
68. Presswood, R. G., Skjonsby, H. S., Hopkins, G., Presswood,
T. L., and Pendleton, M.: A base metal alloy for ceramometal
restorations. J PROSTHETDENT 44:624, 1980.
Reprint requests lo:
DR. J. ROBERT KELLY
NAVAL DENTAL RESEARCH INSTITUTE
BLDG. 1-H.
GREAT LAKES, IL 60088
MARCH 1983 VOLUME 49 NUMBER 3