Mechanical properties of In-Ceram Alumina and In-Ceram Zirconia.

TLDR: X-ray diffraction analysis showed that little phase transformation from tetragonal to monoclinic occurred when the specimens were fractured, supporting the existence of a modest difference of fracture toughness between the two ceramics.

Abstract: Purpose: This study compared the mechanical properties of In-Ceram Zirconia and InCeram Alumina. Materials and Methods: Ninety-four disks and six bars were prepared with the slip-casting technique. The disks were used to assess biaxial flexural strength (piston on three ball), Weibull modulus, hardness, and fracture toughness with two methods: indentation fracture and indentation strength. The bars were used to measure elastic moduli (Young’s modulus and Poisson’s ratio). X-ray diffraction analysis of the specimens was carried out upon every step of the specimen preparation and of the fractured surfaces. Results: Mean biaxial flexure strengths of In-Ceram Alumina and InCeram Zirconia were 600 MPa (SD 60) and 620 MPa (SD 61), respectively. Mean fracture toughness measured according to indentation strength was 3.2 MPa · m 1/2 (SD 0.34) for InCeram Alumina and 4.0 MPa · m 1/2 (SD 0.43) for In-Ceram Zirconia. Mean fracture toughnesses of In-Ceram Alumina and In-Ceram Zirconia measured according to indentation fracture were 2.7 MPa · m 1/2 (SD 0.34) and 3.0 MPa · m 1/2 (SD 0.48), respectively. X-ray diffraction analysis showed that little phase transformation from tetragonal to monoclinic occurred when the specimens were fractured, supporting the existence of a modest difference of fracture toughness between the two ceramics. Conclusion: No statistically significant difference was found in strength. In-Ceram Zirconia was tougher (P < .01) than In-Ceram Alumina when tested according to indentation strength. However, no significant difference was found in the fracture toughness when tested with the indentation fracture technique. Int J Prosthodont 2002;15:339‐346.