Forums
New posts
Search forums
What's new
New posts
Latest activity
Articles
Members
Current visitors
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
New posts
Search forums
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Forums
Lab talk, the good, the bad, and the ugly
Metal
SLM Frameworks
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Prosthodontics" data-source="post: 162018" data-attributes="member: 7077"><p>I have attached an article from 2008. I am not aware if there are more recent articles. This is one of the research areas that I am interested in with our SLM machine. I am busy trying to setup the DMG-20 mill for dental applications atm. </p><p>The shear bond strength numbers they have quoted sound awfully high. I have a feeling that there experimental setup with the Instatron does not follow the ISO standard. They seemed to gloss cover that aspect of the experimental setup. I have a feeling that the test method is not the gold-standard and there is a stringent approach. I have not read the Bondioli & Bottino (2004) experimental setup yet. Break to failure shear testing and (3-point bending for that matter) is easily to do but clinically may not mean much. Cyclic loading may be more clinically relevant. </p><p></p><p>The main thing though is that it is probably no worse than bond strength compared to casting. Having said that 50% of the failures were adhesive failures rather than mixed failures.</p><p></p><p>I have attached the article that Gru mentioned. Haven't read it yet. Also found the 2014 paper by the same group which I have attached. I have to say that the issue of improved mechanical strength of alloy resonates in most literature due to a more uniform orientation of microstructure. Also note the large difference between 55MPa (+/-) in this study vs 81MPa (+/-) in the 2008 study. </p><p></p><p>There is actually a lot of studies that look at different aspects of a variety of SLM printed material over last 5 years in Journal of Dental Materials that have not filtered through to Pros journals yet. Happy to discuss.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Prosthodontics, post: 162018, member: 7077"] I have attached an article from 2008. I am not aware if there are more recent articles. This is one of the research areas that I am interested in with our SLM machine. I am busy trying to setup the DMG-20 mill for dental applications atm. The shear bond strength numbers they have quoted sound awfully high. I have a feeling that there experimental setup with the Instatron does not follow the ISO standard. They seemed to gloss cover that aspect of the experimental setup. I have a feeling that the test method is not the gold-standard and there is a stringent approach. I have not read the Bondioli & Bottino (2004) experimental setup yet. Break to failure shear testing and (3-point bending for that matter) is easily to do but clinically may not mean much. Cyclic loading may be more clinically relevant. The main thing though is that it is probably no worse than bond strength compared to casting. Having said that 50% of the failures were adhesive failures rather than mixed failures. I have attached the article that Gru mentioned. Haven't read it yet. Also found the 2014 paper by the same group which I have attached. I have to say that the issue of improved mechanical strength of alloy resonates in most literature due to a more uniform orientation of microstructure. Also note the large difference between 55MPa (+/-) in this study vs 81MPa (+/-) in the 2008 study. There is actually a lot of studies that look at different aspects of a variety of SLM printed material over last 5 years in Journal of Dental Materials that have not filtered through to Pros journals yet. Happy to discuss. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Who do we work for?
Post reply
Forums
Lab talk, the good, the bad, and the ugly
Metal
SLM Frameworks
Top
Bottom