JUNE 2010 NEW ZEALAND D E I ^ A L JOURNAL
reports
Dental alloys used for crown and bridge restorations by
dental technicians in New Zealand
B BAUMANN, W - H PAI , V BENNANI AND J N WADDELL
New Zealand Denial Journal ¡06. No. 2: 43-49; June 2010
ABSTRACT
Objective: To determine the range and elemental
composition of alloys used for PFM and crown-and-bridge
restorations by New Zealand dental laboratories, and to
understand the reasons tor their selection.
Materials and Methods: Two waves of data collection
were carried out via post and telephone interview. The
source population was dental laboratories advertised with
the Yellow Pages Group in 2007/2008.
Results: A total of 83 out of 109 laboratories (76.1%)
responded. Of those. 35 laboratories (42.1%) reported
producing iixed-prosthodontic restorations. The range of alloy
types (consisting of high noble, noble and base-metal alloys),
brand names (55 products) and manufacturers was determined,
along with the reasons for their selection. Ten intemational
dental alloy manufacturers were identified as being used, with
the leading inanLifacturer being Ivoclar-Vivadent (40.9%),
followed by Argen (25.3%). Most laboratories select their
alloys based on price and physical properties. The average
laboratory carries three to four alloy products.
Conclusion: Alloy selection by dentists and dental
technicians is strongly influenced by economic factors.
While the study identified the range of alloys being used
for fixed restorations in terms of alloy type and brand name.,
further research is needed to determine tbe proportions of
iixed restorations produced from high noble, noble and base
metal alloys, together with dental practitioners" attitudes to,
and preferences in, alloy selection.
INTRODUCTION
Fixed dental prostheses are used for rehabilitation of
function (and aesthetics) of existing teeth, the protection of
cndodontically-treated teeth from cusp flexure and fraeture,
and the replacement of missing teeth (Rosenstiel et al,
2006; Aquilino and Caplan, 2002). Bridges and implant-
borne restorations are often preferred over removable
partial dentures for replacing missing teeth and restoring
ihe patients' masticatory systems (Rosenstiel et al, 2006,
Summit et al, 2001). Full casi, metal ceramic or full
ceramic fixed restorations may be selected, depending on
factors such as the function of the restoration, the amount
of remaining tooth structure, the patient's oral and systemic
health status, and economics (Wassell et al. 2002). Although
full ceramic restorations are aesthetically superior, their
physical properties may not be optimum because of their
lower fracture toughness (Anusavice and Cascone. 2003;
Anusavice. 2003; Kelly. 2004), meaning that the full metal
and metal ceramic restorations have their place.
Peer-reviewed paper. Submitted December 2008: accepted
November 2009.
43
verifiable
cpd paper
A dentist selecting an alloy for bis/her laboratory work
should be cognisant of its composition, in terms of its
biocompatibilily and mechanical properties and its ability
to withstand the masticatory forces in the mouth. Currently,
there are numerous types of alloys available for fixed
prosthodontic restorations; these have different compositions
and mechanical properties. To aid the dentist in tbis process,
the American Dental Association categorises alloys into
broad classes based on their gold and noble metal content
(Table 1). The noble elements are goid (Au), platinum (Pt)
and palladium (Pd).
Table 1. Classification system for cast alloys, by Council on Dental
Materials, Instruments, and Equipment (19S4). Adapted 2008 with
permission ol'the American Dental AssociatiDn," Noble elements that
make up a noble alloy are Gold (Au). Platinum (Pt) and Palladium
(Pd)-
Classifícation Requirement
High Noble Au content >40 (wt%)
Noble metal content >60 (wt%)
Noble Noble metal content >25 (wt%)
Predominantly base-metal Noble metal content <25 (wt%)
To aid in the selection of mechanical properties, the
American National Standards Institute/American Dental
Association (ANSI/ADA) standard No. 5. (1932) classified
gold-based alloys into Types 1 through IV, based on the
Vickers Hardness Number. However, this has been superseded
by the Intemational Organisation for Standardization (ISO)
classification system ISO-1562 (2002), which categorises the
alloys by their yield strength/0.2% proof stress and minimum
elongation (Table 2). This later version ofthe classification is
helpful when selecting an alloy for a functional situation, as
it indicates the elastic limits when an alloy is loaded, instead
of just informing the dentist about ils hardness.
Table 2. ISO Classification "iSO-1562 (2002)" of gold-based
alloys by physical properties of yield strength/0.2% proof stress
and % elongation, by Council on Dental Materials. Instruments,
and liquipmenl.
Alloy Type Minimum 0.2% Proof Minimum %
Stress (MPa) Elongation
1 80 18
11 180 10
III 270 5
IV 360 3
The selection of alloys based on their mechanical
properties is important, especially when treatment planning
44
Tabie 3. Typical physical properties of PFM alloys based on constituents.
Alloy Group Vickers Hardness Elastic Modulus
(GPa)
High Gold 200 90
Gold-Palladium (no silver) 240 124
Goid-Palladiuin-Silver 200 110
Palladium-Copper 275 96
Palladium-Silver 260 138
Nickel-Chromium 240 160
Nickel-Chromium-Beryllium 240 192
Colbai-Chromium 310 210
for long-span bridges and implant substructures. The typical
mechanical properties of PFM alloys are presented in Table 3.
When selecting an alloy fora high-stress situation, the yield
strength is the most important property to consider, because
it indicates the maximum force level within which the alloy
will remain in its elastic range and not distort (O'Brien,
2002). The data in Table 3 indicate that the yield strengths of
the palladium-copper, gold-palladium-silver and palladium-
silver alloys are superior to the base metal alloys. Although
the base metal alloys have a higher elastic modulus, this
indicates only that they are stitïer; they will distort at a lower
force level, as indicated by the yield strength. Tensile strength
infomiation can be misleading when selecting an alloy, in
that it indicates only the force to pull the alloy apart, which
is a combination of the modulus and yield strength. It is not
the best indicator of performance in the oral environment.
The Vickers hardness has little clinical relevance except
for occlusal wear resistance and the ease of adjustment and
polishing (O'Brien. 2002).
Corrosion properties and biocompatibility are factors
which contribute to the success of fixed restorations
(Wataha. 2001; Wataha. 2002). The alloys used should
possess appropriate resistance to corrosion in order to avoid
unwanted cytotoxic side-etTects (Callister. 2003. Eschler et
al. 2003). The corrosion characteristics are dependent on the
composition of the alloy, electrode potential, strain, surface
roughness, degree of oxidation, local pH. media temperature,
mixing velocity of the solution, and the presence of inhibitors
(Bayramoglu et al. 2000). There is a greater risk for corrosion
when the non-noble metal content of the alloy is higher or
when multiple-phase alloys are used (William. 1990; Wataha,
2002; O'Brien, 2002). Corrosion and biocompatibility are
evidenily related, but their interaction is very complex and
not easy to predict (Geis-Gerstorfer. 1994; Wataha, 2002).
Every material placed in the oral cavity will have an effect
on the oral tissues (and vice versa), depending on the host,
the function of the material, and the conditions in the oral
cavity (Wataha. 2001; Wataha. 2003). As summarised by
Schmalz and Garhammer (2002), dental and non-dental
factors (age, sex, medication, general disease) can contribute
to oral mucosal health. This may lead to toxic, subtoxic or
allergy reactions with the presence of systemic signs (such
as chronic fatigue, autoimmune diseases; Setcos et al. 2006;
Hildebrand et al, 1989), local subjective symptoms (such
as xerostomia, burning mouth syndrome, metallic taste and
pain), and objective symptoms (such as gingivitis, local
periodontitis, discoloration and lichenoid reaction; Wirtz
and Hoffmann, 1999; Atsushi, 2006; Pigatlo et al. 2008).
Beryllium is a common ingredient in nickel-chromium PFM
alloys because of its ability to lower the melting range of the
alloy and produce a thinner, more adherent oxide which is
more suitable for chetnical bonding than nickel-chromium
Denial alloys used by NZ technicians - BAUMANN KT AL
0.2% Proof Tensile Strength Specific Gravitv
Stress/Yield (MPa) (g/cm-')
Strength (MPa)
480 580 18.1
550 800 14.8
600 680 14.9
800 851 10.6
650 810 11.4
360 580 8.6
552 1138 7.8
480 720 8.5
alloys that do not contain beryllium (Wataha. 2003). One
of the problems of beryllium-containing nickel-ehromium
alloys is the potential carcinogenic health hazard for the
dental technician which arises from inhaling the dusts
and fumes when casting and grinding the alloy during the
manufacture of the metal substructure (Anusavice and
Cascone, 2003). Another problem is the efTcct that beryllium
has on lowering the corrosion resistance of such alloys in
the mouth (Cheng et al, 1990; Pan et al. 1995; Eflekhari.
2003). It is assumed that minimising the corrosion potential
of a prosthesis through careful material selection may reduce
the extent of its biological elTect (Geis-Gerstorfer, 1994).
According to Wataha (2000), high noble alloys containing
the least number of base metal elements should be the first
choice when selecting alloys, and nickel-based alloys should
be avoided whenever there is a suitable alternative.
Alloy selection and preference is highly determined by the
prices of gold, platinum and palladium. There is a trend for
alloys containing less gold and more palladium, and for usage
of base metal alloys (Wataha. 2002). In selecting an alloy
based on price, the density is the most important indicator of
how much alloy will be needed to cast the metal substructure
(Table 3). When the price per gram is considered, the gold-
based alloys which have the highest density will be the most
expensive, and the base metal alloys the least (and therefore
most cost-etTective).
Little is known about dental alloy usage in New Zealand.
The aim of this study was to determine the range and
elemental composition of alloys used for PFM and crown-
and-bridge restorations by New Zealand dental laboratories,
and to understand the reasons for their selection.
MATERIALS AND M E T H O D S
The survey used a three-item postal questionnaire and a
subsequent telephone interview for laboratories which failed
to respond to the postal questionnaire. The sample comprised
all dental technology laboratories which advertised with
the Yellow Pages Group of New Zealand in 2007/2008'.
Laboratories which exclusively advertised that they provided
only removable prostheses were not selected, and postal
addresses repeated under different laboratory names were
sent a single questionnaire.
In the questionnaire, respondents were asked to (Í) list
all the brand names of the metal alloys used in crown and
bridge (including PFM) work, and (ii) give the particular
reasons for those preferences. Frecform comments were also
sought. Non-responders were followed up using a telephone
interview, with all of the telephone surveys conducted over
' Yellow Pages Group New Zealand (2008). Regional directories
yellow.co.nz/search/new+zeüland
JUNE 2010 N F W ZEALAND DENTAL JOURNAL 45

Table 4. List of high noble alloys per ADA classification by elemental composition used by New Zealand dental laboratories in the manufacture
of fixed restorations. The alloys are ranked from highest gold (Au) content to lowest. Alloys containing more than 10 wt% copper (Cu) have
their copper content highlighted in bold type.

Product Name Company Au Pt Pd Ag Cu In Ir Re Ru Sn Zn

Yitiinikiii
Yamamoto 90 7.0 0.3
Yellow
Argendent 90 Argen 89.5 5.8 1.6 1.2

Brite Gold XH Ivoclar 88.9 9.0

Aquarius H Ivoclar 86.1 8.5 2.6 1.4 <1

PenCeram 86 (Bio 86.0
Pentron Alloys II.O
86)
Authentic 86 Argen 86.0 9.9 4.0

Argedent bio 86PF Argen 85.9 11.7 <1 1.5

IPS d. Sign 98 Ivoelar 85.9 12.1 1.5

Argendent yellow I Argen 85.3 10.0 1.0 0.6 1.2 1.3

Aquarius XH Ivoclar 82.8 9.0 5.0 2.5

Cendres- 77.3 9.8
Estheticor Special 8.9 1.2 0.3 1.5 O.I 0.2 0.5
Métaux
Academy Gold 77.2 12.7 8.5
Ivoclar
Hannony Medium Ivoclar 76.8 12.8 8.3

Argedent 3 Argen 76.6 9.9 9.3 1.2 1.7 <1

Super Crystal KP-5 Yamamoto 75.0 6.7 12.3 1.8

Argenco 2 Argen 74.1 1.6 2.3 13.4 7.2 <1

Harmony Hard Ivoclar 74.0 3.8 12.0 9.0

IPS d. Sign % Ivoclar 73.8 8.5 5.4 9.0 1.9 <1 <1

liio Heranorm Heraeus 72.5 8.3 16.3 0.5

Harmony PF Ivoclar 72.0 3.6 13.7 9.8
Neocast 4(3) Cendres-
71.6 3.7 12.7 10.8 0.1 1.1
Metaux
Maingold SG Heraeus 71.0 2.0 1.9 12.3 12.2 0.5
Argenco 5 Argen 68.9 2.1 1.9 10.0 15.9 <I 1
Protor 3 Cendres- 68.6 2.4 4.0 11.8 10.6 0.1 2.5
Métaux
I iarmony XH 68.3 2.9 3.6 10.0 13.8 <1 l.I
Ivoclar
XLX 66.8 3.9 16.1 15.7
Ivoclar
IPS d. Sign 91 Ivoclar 60.0 30.6 1.0 8.4 <1
Argenco 4 Argen 59.6 0.6 4.4 21.8 13.3
Maxigold Ivoclar 59.5 2.7 26.3 8.5 <1 2.7

Stab i I or G DeguDent 58.0 0.1 5.5 23.3 12.0 0.1 1.0

Yamakin Quintess 56.0 24.5

Yamamoto 2.0 13.0
Cera I y
Heraeus 55.6 38.0 8.5
Haraloy G
Argen 51.5 38.4 1.4 8.5
Argedent 52 SF

Novobond Argen 51.5 38.4 1.4 8.5

Euro 50 Wieland 51.5 26.6 18.2 0.9 4.1 2.7

46 Denial alloys used by NZ technicians - BAUMANN ET AL

three consecutive days. Only one interviewer conducted the in terms of their constituents, with noble alloys comprising
questioning at a time; two interviewers were involved in the bulk and base metal alloys a minor part of the range
total. The telephone interviews used the same format as the of alloys being used by New Zealand dental laboratories.
postal questionnaire. The study also identified the reasons for this choice, with
price and mechanical performance being the main reason.,
RESULTS followed by dentist preference, then biocompatibiiity. Of the
Of the 109 laboratories who advertised with the Yellow dental supply companies involved, Ivoclar was the leading
Pages Group and met the selection criteria. 83 (76.1%) supplier, followed by Argen. Although the study identified
responded to the survey. Despite anonymity being promised the range of alloys used by alloy type, it did not idcniify the
to the participants., seven laboratories reñised to participate, volume of these alloy types used to produce PFM and crown
even when contacted over the telephone. Overall. 35 and bridge restorations. This is a major weakness that will
laboratories (42.2%) carried out crown and bridge and PFM require further research. The findings show only that, of the
work. All subsequent data pertain to those 35. range of noble and base metal alloys being used by dental
A total of 55 different alloy brand names were named. laboratories, 87% are noble; it would be incorrect to assume
These were grouped by alloy type; high noble (Table 4); that 87% of restorations are made from noble alloys.
noble (Table 5) and base metal (Table 6). Of the 55 brands of One of the problems encountered in the study was the
alloy, 35 (64%) were high noble. 13 (23%) were noble and 7 initial identification of dental laboratories which offered
(13%) were base metal according to the ADA classification crown and bridge services. The registration system in New
(Table I). On average each laboratory carried 3.4 alloy Zealand operates at the level of the individual practitioner
products and 23% of the laboratories did not use high-noble rather than the practice or laboratory, and so the Dental
alloys. Council of New Zealand (DCNZ) was unable to supply a
There were 11 international manufacturer/supply list of laboratories when contacted tor this infomiatioii. The
companies listed (Table 7). The most frequently-named New Zealand Institute of Dental Technologists was also
company was Ivoclar-Vivadent (41%), followed by Argen unable to do so. As the main goal was to determine the range
(25%). of alloys being used by dental laboratories, the existing
The open-ended question into the reasons behind the list of individual registered dental technicians published
material brand preference provided an array of responses on the DCNZ web site was not suitable. We believe that,
(Figure I). The dominant factors were low price and good because we used the Yellow Pages Group advertisements
physical properties. One of the least-mentioned factors as a sampling frame, the sample was representative of the
was the manufacturer's recommendation for a given alloy commercial laboratories in New Zealand. However, there
of matching the coefficient of thermal expansion to an were some non-responders, and there is a possibility that
appropriate porcelain system. Biocompatibility, colour, ease not all laboratories list themselves in the Yellow Pages. This
of processing, familiarity, reliability and high gold content of could have affected the generalisability of the findings.
the alloy were also on the list as seleetion criteria. The study found that there is a wide variety of dental
alloys available in New Zealand and that more than one-fifth
DISCUSSION of laboratories do not use high-noble alloys. Nickel is believed
This is the first New Zealand study of dental alloy usage in to be one of the leading allergic metal components of dental
dental laboratories. It has identified the range of alloys used alloys (Schmalz and Garhammer, 2002; Setcos et al, 2006).
Table 5. List of noble alloys per ADA classification by elemental composition used by New Zealand dental laboratories in the manufacture of
fixed restorations. The alloys are ranked from highest gold (Au) content to lowest. Alloys containing more than 10 wt% copper (Cu) have their
copper content highlighted in bold type; and Pallorag 33, with a combined silver (Ag) and copper content of 70 wt%. is highlighted in italics.
Product Name Cottipany Au Pt Pd Ag Cu Ga In Ir Re Ru Sn Zn
Cendres- (Au-
Estheticor Actual 53.6 37.6 0.2 8.6
Metaux Pt=53.8)
Argenco 42 Argen 42.0 7.9 26.0 22.0 2.0
Minigold Ivoctar 40.0 4.0 47.0 7.5 <1 1.0
Argenco 28 Argen 40.0 8.0 40.0 11.9
Cendres-
Strator 3 20.0 19.9 40.0 16.( 0.05 4.0
Métaux
Cendres-
Pallorag 33
Métaux
10.0 20.0 59.5 9.5 1.0

Argelite 80+5 Argen 4.8 79.9 1.8 6.3 6.5

Degupal DeguDent 4.5 77.3 7.2 0.5 4.0
IPS d. Sign 67 ivoclar 4.0 62.7 20.0 1.7 1.5 10.0
Spartan Plus ivoclar 2.0 78.8 10.0 9.0
Argebond 80 Argen 80.0 5.0 6.3 6.5 <1 1.0
Argelite 55 Argen 55.0 34.0 <1 6.0 3.0 1.0
IPS d. Sign 53 Ivoclar 53.8 34.9 1.7 7.7 1.2
JUNE 2010 NEW ZEALAND DENTAL JOURNAL 47

Table 6. List of base metal alloys by elemental composition used by New Zealand dental laboratories in the manufacture of fixed restorations.
The alloys are ranked from highest nickel (Ni) content to lowest. Alloys containing less than 25 wt% chromium (Cr) are highlighted in bold.
The two beryllium-containing alloys are highlighted in italics, and NPG+2 alloy, with a copper content of 80.7 wt%, is featured separately.

Product Name Company Ni Co Cr Mo AL Si Mn Ga W Be Ti4

Argeloy NP (v) Argen 72 15 1.5
Tilite V Talladium 76 12 6 1.8 Ti 4
Pisces Plus Ivoclar 61.5 22 2.3 2.6 11.2
4 all Ivoclar 62 26 12
WirobondC Bego 61 26 6
Wirobond 280 Bego 60.2 25 4.8 <1 2.9 6.2

Product Name Company Cu Al Fe Zn Mn

NPG+2 Albadem 80.7 7.8 3 2.7 1.7 4.3

Studies have shown that 5-15% of women and 0.5-1% of this alloy may be subject to increased ionic dissolution,
men are nickel-sensitive (Wataha, 2001). Internationally, tarnish and subsequent possible negative biological elTects
alloy manufacturers have responded to the increasing (Anusavice and Bantley, 2003). This is evident from the
health concerns by producing nickel-free base-metal alloy finding of Eschler and colleagues (2003). who reported from
systems. Ofthe six base metal alloy brands identified, four in vitro testing that the cast Cu-AI alloys "exhibit a very low
were nickel-based. It is unfortunate that the study did not corrosion resistance in an oral-type environment". Benatti
determine the percentage of PFM and crowns and bridges (2000) also found considerable corrosion in vitro and In vivo
manufactured in the laboratory using these alloys. in non-self-cleaning sites with Cu-AI and Cu-AI-Zn alloys.
A copper-aluminium alloy (NPG+2. Albadent, USA) is The prescribing of these types of alloys is therefore not
in use by laboratories in New Zealand (Table 5). This alloy recommended (Wataha, 2000).
is a low-priced substitute for gold alloys in the production Ten of the noble alloys listed had a copper content of
of lull-metal crowns and bridges; it typically consists of greater than 10%. with the highest being Argenco 42
80% copper, with the remainder comprising approximately (Argen, USA), which had 22% copper (Table 4). Wataha
10% aluminium and other base metal elements. Owing to (2000) described copper as a labile element that increases
the more active (anodic) nature of copper and aluminium. the tarnish and corrosion potential of an alloy. Where local
toxicity is concerned, the presence of copper at levels as low
Table 7. Number of laboratories sourcing alloy in New Zealand by
as 10 |im/g in the gingival crevice can be detrimental to the
nianufacUircr (%),
epithelial cells (Wataha, 2000).
Manufacturer Number of laboratories % Distribution
One ofthe alloys available in New Zealand is a palladium-
sourcing alloy
copper PFM alloy (Spartan Plus. Ivocar. Williams. USA)
Ivoclar-Vivadent 26 40.6 (Table 4). Both Wataha (2000) and Geurlsen (2002)—in
reviews ofthe biocompatibility of dental casting a l l o y s -
Argen 16 25.0
identified low corrosion resistance and the potentially
Dcgudenl 7 10.9 harmful release of copper ions as a problem with PdCu
Talladium Tillite 5 7.8 multiphase PFM alloys. Such a problem with those alloys
Albadent 2 3.1 was further highlighted by Hildebrand et al (2006), who
Bego 2 3.1 found that the corrosion of copper induced a toxic effect
Yamamoto 2 3.1 in vivo and resulted in a roughened surface with pits and
Wieland 1 1.6 crevices resulting from corrosion within the various metallic
Heraeus 1 1.6 phases ofthe grain and between the grains ofthe alloy.
Cendres-Métaux 1 1.6 It was apparent that price and physical strength are strong
Pentron 1 1.6 influences in alloy selection in laboratories (Figure I).
However, it was unclear what the factors underlying dentists'
preferences were (whether price, biological issues or other),
and the dentists' perspective needs further investigation.
The Code of Practice for Dental Technicians and Dental
Practitioners under the Patient information and records
section- states that "Records should show...a description of
any procedure, including any materials used...". Whether
this is adhered to in practice is questionable, however,
since it is not a mandatory requirement. The advantages of
an accurate materials record-keeping system are the ability
to satisfy patients' health concerns about the composition
of their prosthodontic restorations, and the ability to trace
back information on the materials which were used, in
the event of an allergic reaction or failure. Without this
being a mandatory regulatory requirement, it is up to the
Figure I. Dental technicians" material brand preference criteria (data dental professionals themselves to uphold their ethical and
;irc ihc iiLiniber of times the reason was given).
48
professional obligations by keeping adequate records ofthe
alloys used in treating their patients.
The biocompatibility of dental materials is an essential
property for the long-term success of any restoration. The
FDI (Federation Dentaire Internationale) and the ANSI/ADA
are the two leading organisations in the systématisation of
methods and criteria for biocompatibility testing (William,
1990). it is generally accepted that the noblealloys (especially
gold) are more biologically inert, but base metal alloys are
less resistant to corrosion (Anusavice and Bantley, 2003).
Dental practitioners should be aware that biocompatibility is
dependent on both the patient and material. It is an ongoing
dynamic process where materials can deteriorate and corrode
over time., and individuals can develop diseases or allergies
(Ferracane, 2001; Geurtsen, 2002; Wataha, 2001). Dentists
and dental technicians sbould consider this when choosing
alloy products. What is desired is a shift of focus from the
price and physical properties of an alloy as the deciding
factor towards a balanced, informed decision which also
considers biocompatibility. There are no completely inert
materials with lifelong biocompatibility (Wataha, 2001 ), and
so dental professionals should be encouraged to find the best
materials for each patient and to ensure that they stay up to
date with the relevant evidence-based literature.
CONCLUSION
Alloy selection by dental professionals is currently
influenced strongly by economic factors. However, future
consideration should be based primarily on mechanical,
biocompatibility and corrosion considerations. The
recommendation is to use high-noble and single-phase alloys
whenever possible, as they have the best corrosion resistance.
This study has identified the range of alloys being used for
fixed restorations. However, further research is needed to
determine the proportions of fixed restorations produced
using high noble, noble and base metal alloys.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
This study was supported by the School of Dentistry,
University of Otago. We wish to thank the dental laboratories
which participated.
REFERENCES
Anusavice KJ (2003). Denial ceramics, ¡n Anusavice KJ (Editor).
Phillips Science of Dental Materials. 1 r*'ed. Philadelphia: Saunders.
Anusavice KJ and Bantley WA (2003). Physical properties of dental
materials. Ifi Anusavice KJ (Editor). PhiHips' Science of Dental
Materials. 11"' ed. Philadelphia: Saunders.
Anusavice KJ ¡uid Cascone P (2003). Dental casting and soldering
alloys. In Anusavice KJ (Editor). Phillips' Science of Dental
Materials. 11"'ed. Philadelphia: Saunders.
Aquilino SA and Caplan DJ (2(X)2). Relationship between crown
placement and the survival of endodontically treated teeth. Journal
ofPw.sthelic Dentistry 87: 256-263.
Atsushi M (2006). A case report of a metal allergy patient whose
prosthesis was identified ailergenic by non-destructive metal element
analysis and a dermatological patch test. Journal of the .Japan
Prosthodontic Society.50\ 276-279.
Bayramoglu G. Alemdarogiu T, Kedici S and Aksut AA (2000).
The efFect of pH on the corrosion of dental alloys. Journal of Oral
Rehahiliiation 27: 563-575.
Benatti O (2000). In vitro and In vivo corrosion evaluation of nickel-
cbromium and copper-aluminum-based alloys. Journal ofProsthetic
Dentistn- 84: 360-363.
Dental alloys used by NZ technicians - BAUMANN ET AI.
Callister WD (2003). Corrosion and degradation of materials.
In Callister WD (Editor) Materials Science and Engineering: an
introduction. 6"* ed. USA: John Wiley & Sons Inc.
Council on Dental Materials. Instruments and Equipment (1^)84).
Classification system for cast alloys. Journal of American Dental
Association 109: 766.
Eftekhari A (2003). Fractal study of Ni-Cr-Mo alloy for dental
applications: effect of beryllium. Applied Surface Science 220:
343-348.
Eschler PY, Luthy H, Reclaru L, Blatter A, Loeffel O, Siisz C and
Boesch J (2003). Copper-Aluminium Bronze - a substitute material
for gold dental alloys? European Cells and Malcriáis 5(Supp.l):
49-50.
Ferracane JL (2001 ). Materials for inlays, onlays, crowns and bridges.
Material in Dentistry. 2'"'ed. Philadelphia: Lippincott Williams &
Wilkins.
Geis-Gerstorfer J (1994). In vitro corrosion measurements of dental
aWoys. Journal of Dentistry 22: 247-251.
Geurtsen W (2002). Biocompatibility of dental casting alloys. Critical
Reviews of Oral Biology and Medicine 13: 71-84.
Hildebrand G. Schreiber A, Lohrengel M, Strielzcl R and Licl'eith
K (2006). Localized electrochemical investigations of Pd73Cul3.5
ceramic firing dental alloy in DlN-saliva. Corrosion Science 48:
3629-3645.
Hildebrand HF. Veron C. and Martin P (1989). Nickel, chromium.
cobalt dental alloys and allergic reactions: an overview. Biomaterials.
10:545-548.
Kelly JR (2(X)4). Dental ceramics: current thinking and trends. Dental
Clinics of North America 48: 521-530.
O'Brien W (2002). Dental Materials and Their Selection. 4"' ed.
USA: Quintessence.
Pan J. Geis-Gerstorfer J, Thierry D and Leygraf C (1995).
Electrochemical studies ofthe influence of beryllium ofthe corrosion
resistance of Ni-25Cr*10Mo cast alloys of dental applications.
Journal Electrochemistiy Society 142: 1454-1458.
Pigatto PD, Feilzer AJ. Valentine-Thon E. Zerboni R and Guzzi G
(2008). Case-Report: Burning mouth syndrome associated with
palladium allergy? Enropean Journal of Dermatology 18: 356-357.
Rosenstiel SF, Land MF and Fujimoto J (2006). Contemporary Fixed
Prosthodontics. St Louis: Mosby.
Schmalz G and Garhammer P (2002). Biological interactions of
dental cast alloys with oral tissues. Dental Materials 18: 396-406.
Setcos JC. Babaei-Mahani A. Di Silvio L and Mjor IA (2(X)6). Tbe
safety of nickel containing dental alloys. Dental Materials 22:
1163-1168.
Summit JB. Robbins JW, and Schwartz RS (2001). Fundamentals
of Operative Dentistry. A contemporary approach. Illinois:
Quintessence Publishing Co. Inc.
Wasseil RW, Walls WG and Steete JG (2002). Crowns and extra-
coronal restorations: Materials selection. British Dental Journal
192: 199-211.
Wataha JC (2(X)n). Biocompatibility of dental casting alloys: a review.
Journal of Prosthetic Dentistiy 83: 223-234.
Wataha JC (2001). Principles of biocompatibility for dental
practitioners. Journal of Prosthetic Dentistry. 86: 203-209.
Wataha JC (2002). Alloys for prosthodontic restorations. Journal of
Prosthetic Dentistiy 87: 351-63.
Wataha JC (2003). Biocompatibility of dental materials. ///
Anusavice KJ (Editor). Phillips 'Science of Dental Materials. 11"'
ed. Philadelphia: Saunders.
JuNt2010 NEW ZEALAND DENTAL JOURNAL 49

William D (1990). Conci.se Encyclopedia of Medical and Denial VINCENT BENNANI CERTADVPROS,CERTADVIMPL.DOCTORATE
Materials. London: Pergamon, (pages 51-65, 121-125).
Sir John Walsh Research Institute, School of Dentistry,
Wirtz J and Hofïmann A (1999). Electrofonnin}^ in Restorative University of Otago.
Denlisiry. New liimeiviions in biologically based prosthesis. Berlin: PO Box 647.
Quintessence. Dunedin 9054

J NEIL WADDELL MDIPTECH(DENT TECH){TN),

BEATA BAUMANN MD (HUN), B D S PGDIPCDTECH(OTAGO). HDE(UN}
Christchurch Hospital. Canterbury District Health Board. Sir John Walsh Research Institute, School of Dentistry.
Private Bag 4710 University of Otago,
Christchurch PO Box 647,
Dunedin 9054
WEN-HSIN PAI BDS
Southland Hospital. Southland District Health Board. Corresponding author: Vincent Bennani. E-mail: vincent.
PO. Box 828, K.ew Road. bennani (ttiotago, ac .nz
Invercargill

COMMAND

DENTAL 8 ^ ^ DENTAL 17
The DENTAL 8 features a fully The DENTAL 17 features twin
enclosed, silenced cabinet with compressors for twice the
enough capacity to operate two output capacity to operate up
cfiairs to four chairs

The AIR COMMAND Dentals are high
perfonmance compressors,
incorporating modern technology
with the solidity of proven
engineering designs.
^ Large capacity 2-4 chair
V^ Qufet operation
V Hledicaiiy dean, dry air

With extra features, such as the •/ HighQuaiity

automatic desstcant filtration, large
capacity output and ultra quiet
operation, the AIR COMMAND
Dental will become an investment
STERLING
you will not regret " " ' ' s " * " » ' ' * - ' /««'lo':^«, .„p^i,,,

PH 0800 777 902 for an information package

SALES AND SERVICE AGENTS NATIONWIDE
Copyright of New Zealand Dental Journal is the property of New Zealand Dental Association Incorporated and
its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's
express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use.