[Research on physical and mechanical properties, crown accuracy by using self- made FUS-invest dental investment].

Purpose: To evaluate the physical and mechanical properties of pure titanium castings cast by self- made FUS-invest dental investment, and evaluate casting accuracy.

Methods: Seven pure titanium castings were cast by self-made FUS-invest zirconium investment and analyzed using servo hydraulic dynamic experiment system (JJG139-83 standard), scanning electron microscope and energy spectrum analysis. Thirty-eight crowns of pure titanium were cast by two different methods. One cast by FUS-invest zirconium embedding material was used for experiment and the other cast by phosphate embedding material was used as control. Casting accuracy was assessed through measuring the difference value d at the marginal marker points and distance between casting pieces of wall and working modes of casting were examined under microscope. Scanning electron microscope with energy-dispersive spectrum (EDS) was used to analyze the status of composition of the casting surface. SPSS 17.0 software package was used to investigate the difference of two groups.

Results: ①Qualitative analysis of servo hydraulic dynamic experiment system showed various mechanical properties: elastic modulus (123.5±14.2) GPa, yield strength (569.3±16.5) MPa, tensile strength (668.4±16.1) MPa, elongation (4.5±0.2)%. EDS analysis of the fracture was observed at different depth (13, 25, 50, 350 μm) under the surface of pollution layer, a little Si and Fe with different atomic percentage was found but no Zr. ②No significant difference (P>0.05) was found between each group of four markers on the marginal fit, and internal fit, whereas significant difference (P<0.01) was found at different marker point.

Conclusions: The mechanical properties of commercially pure titanium casting by self-made FUS-invest zirconium-based investment can meet the qualification of dental metal materials, although elongation was a little lower. Both the marginal adaptation and internal fit between the two groups had no significant difference. The mean marginal difference was 46 μm, the mean internal difference at axial angle was 56 μm and approximately 0 at axial wall.