Original Research

The effect of remelting various combinations of new and used

cobalt–chromium alloy on the mechanical properties and
microstructure of the alloy

Sharad Gupta, Aruna S Mehta1

Department of
Prosthodontics, ITS-CDSR,
ABSTRACT
Muradnagar, Ghaziabad,
Uttar Pradesh – 201 206,
1
Dr DY Patil Dental College,
Nerul, Navi Mumbai, India
Received : 02-03-11
Review completed : 26-07-11
Accepted : 01-11-11
Context: Remelting previously cast base metal alloy can adversely affect the mechanical
properties of the alloy and necessitates addition of new alloy.
Aims: To study the effect of remelting different combinations of new and used cobalt–chromium
(Co–Cr) alloy on its mechanical properties and microstructure.
Materials and Methods: Using induction casting, 24 tensile test specimens were prepared for
eight different combinations of new and used Co–Cr alloy. The test specimens were assessed
for yield strength and percentage elongation. Microhardness was evaluated using Vickers’s
hardness tester. The tensile testing was carried out on a 50 kN servo-hydraulic universal testing
machine. Microstructure analysis was done using an optical photomicroscope on the fractured
samples after acid etching.
Statistical Analysis: The mean values (±standard deviation) and coefficient of variation were
calculated. Student’s ‘t’ test was used for statistical analysis. Statistical significance was assumed
at P=.05.
Results: The mean yield strength of eight different combination groups were as follows: group
A: 849 MPa, group B1: 834 MPa, group B2: 915 MPa, group B3: 897 MPa, group C1: 874 MPa, group
C2: 859 MPa, group D1: 845 MPa, and group D2: 834 MPa. The mean percentage elongation for
the different groups were as follows: group A: 7%, group B1: 7%, group B2: 8%, group B3: 7%,
group C1: 8%, group C2: 7%, group D1: 7%, and group D2: 8%. The mean hardness values were as
follows: group A: 373 VHN, group B1: 373 VHN, group B2: 346 VHN, group B3: 346 VHN, group
C1: 364 VHN, group C2: 343 VHN, group D1: 376 VHN, and group D2: 373 VHN.
Conclusion: Repeated remelting of base metal alloy for dental casting without addition of
new alloy can affect the mechanical properties of the alloy. Microstructure analysis shows
deterioration upon remelting. However, the addition of 25% and 50% (by weight) of new
alloy to the remelted alloy can bring about improvement both in mechanical properties and in
microstructure.
Key words: Cobalt–chromium alloy, microstructure base alloy, remelting

Success with cast partial denture frameworks requires close dentures has undergone little change. However, there have
attention to both clinical and laboratory procedures. Over been drastic changes in the fabrication procedure with
the years the philosophy behind the designing of cast partial respect to investment materials, casting techniques and,
especially, casting alloys. Until a few years back, gold alloys
Address for correspondence: remained the material of choice for fabricating cast partial
Dr Sharad Gupta denture frameworks, but the unchecked escalation in the
E-mail: sharadssv@gmail.com cost of gold has shifted the focus towards comparatively
cheaper base metal alloys. Cobalt–chromium (Co–Cr) alloys
Access this article online were first used to construct cast partial denture frameworks
Quick Response Code: Website: in 1933. [1] Many technical difficulties were initially
www.ijdr.in encountered and the use of Co–Cr in dentistry was limited
till improvements in alloy manufacture and the techniques
PMID:
*** for their management resulted in greater use of these alloys.
Co–Cr alloys exhibit good strength and rigidity, they are
DOI: lightweight and resistant to corrosion, and they have low
10.4103/0970-9290.102220
cost, all of which make them ideal for use in the fabrication
341 Indian Journal of Dental Research, 23(3), 2012
Evaluation of remelting and remixing new and used cobalt–chromium alloy upon mechanical properties Gupta and Mehta
of cast partial dentures. In the current economic conditions,
the dentist and the technician need to be cost conscious
when fabricating cast frameworks.
Studies by Harcourt HJ,[2] Harcourt HJand Cotterill WF[3]
and Lewis AJ[4] have shown that when base metal alloys
are reused for castings it is necessary to add new alloy to
remelted alloy for maintaining castability and to prevent
deterioration in the mechanical properties of the alloy. In
this era of evidence-based dentistry, arbitrary addition of
new alloy to the old is not tenable; we need to establish the
optimum ratio of new to old alloy.
The aim of this study was to study the influence of addition
of new alloy to used Co–Cr alloy on the mechanical
properties and microstructure of the material. The objectives
of the study were to evaluate the effect of remelting
various combinations of new and used Co–Cr alloy on the
mechanical properties and microstructure of the material
and to establish the optimum ratio of new to used Co–Cr
alloy for subsequent castings.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
Description of alloy groups
For the purpose of study we chose eight different
combinations of new and used Co-Cr alloy (S-U Duranium,
Schuller, Germany); this alloy consists of Co (62%–65%),
Cr (27%–29%), and Mo (5%–6%) [Table 1].
Specimen preparation
Twenty-four tensile test specimens were cast, three for each
of the eight different combinations of new and used Co-Cr
alloy; casting was in accordance with ADA specification
No. 14 for dental Co–Cr casting alloy. In accordance with
the specifications, the tensile bar was 13/8 inch long and
0.09±0.01 inches in diameter; the junction between the grips
on either end formed a semicircle of about 1/4th inch radius
[Figure 1]. A split silicone mold (RTV, Dow Corning, USA)
was fabricated by duplicating, lathe-cut sample of the tensile
bar specimen. Hard inlay-wax (S-U Inlay-Wax, Schuler,
Germany) was melted and injected with a micropipette to
obtain the wax patterns for the bars. Three patterns were
casted for each group using the combination of new and
Table 1: Description of alloy groups
Group A (control) Group B
100% by weight 100% by weight
new alloy used alloy
Casting A Casting B1
1st melt alloy 2nd melt alloy
Casting B2
3rd melt alloy
Casting B3
4th melt alloy
‘Used’ alloy in this article indicates alloy remnants of previous casting which is reused in combination with new alloy for subsequent castings.
Indian Journal of Dental Research, 23(3), 2012
used alloy specified for the group. The wax patterns were
sprued with 3-mm preformed sprue wire (S- U Wax Wire,
turquoise, Schuler, Germany) applied in a semicircular form
end-to-end in the grip portion. The patterns were attached to
the crucible former and sprayed with debubblizer (True Blue
GT Products); this was followed by investing in phosphate-
bonded investment material (Kromco-Vest, Matech, Inc.
USA) according to the manufacturer’s instructions. Using an
induction casting machine (Aseg, Galloni, Italy), the casting
was carried out after the investment was sufficiently set,
following the desired ratio of alloy for that particular group.
Eight different combinations of alloy were used for casting.
Excess alloy for reusing was separately cast following
standard procedures, since the remnants of the 1st melt alloy
following group A casting was insufficient for subsequent
castings of groups B1, C1, and D1.
As shown in Figure 2, 80 g of new alloy was casted under
similar conditions as was used for casting group A bar
specimens. The excess casted alloy was thoroughly cleaned
by sandblasting, cut into small pieces, and divided into three
parts by weight according to the desired ratio of the new
and used alloy for groups B1, C1, and D1 castings. Similarly,
2nd melt (B1) excess alloy, required for the groups B2, C2, and
D2 was obtained by a taking 80 g of fresh alloy and casting it
twice. Group B3 casting was obtained by remelting new Co–
Cr alloy thrice, following the standard casting protocol as
described above. For all the subgroups castings, irrespective
of the ratio of new and used alloy, the total weight of alloy
per casting was kept at 30 g for each group for the purpose
of standardization.
Care was taken not to overheat the metal, and the
temperature of casting for each group was noted. The
castings were allowed to cool down to room temperature,
after which they were sandblasted for divesting. All cast
samples were finished and electrolytically polished using
conventional techniques. The finished bars were grouped
and labeled with a permanent marker for identification.
Testing of tensile properties
Before being subjected to testing, the tensile bars were
evaluated for internal defects by industrial radiography
Group C Group D
75% by weight used alloy 50% by weight used alloy
+ 25% by weight new alloy + 50% by weight new alloy
Casting C1 Casting D1
75% by weight 50% by weight
1st melt alloy + 1st melt alloy +
25% new alloy 50% new alloy
Casting C2 Casting D2
75% (by weight) 50% (by weight)
2nd melt alloy+ 2nd melt alloy+
25% new alloy 50% new alloy
342
Evaluation of remelting and remixing new and used cobalt–chromium alloy upon mechanical properties Gupta and Mehta
Figure 1: Tensile bar specimen according to ADA specification No. 14.
(CMA-402-Andrex, Escort India). The tensile testing
was carried out on 50 kN servo-hydraulic universal
testing machine (Biss, India). The samples with their
grip portion were held by the fixture and were subjected
to tensile load through computerized data feeding at a
crosshead speed of 0.5 mm/minute. Load vs strain graphs
were obtained for each sample. The graphs were than
subjected to computerized postprocessing to obtain values
for yield strength, percentage elongation, and modulus
of elasticity. The mean value for each group was then
derived.
Microhardness analysis
Microhardness analysis was done using the Vickers’s
hardness tester (Stiefelmayer-Reicherter, Germany).
Vickers’s hardness number was recorded for each sample
at four distant points on the smooth polished surface of the
grip portion. The mean was then derived.
Microstructure analysis
Following tensile testing, the grip portion of the fractured
bar, one from each of the eight groups, were mounted in
self-cure acrylic resin (Acrylan®) to obtain a resin block
with the flat metal surface of the grip portion exposed.
The mounted metal samples were ground flat on a belt
emery grinding machine. All the specimens were further
smoothened manually with emery paper, sequentially
from grades 0 to IV. Final polishing was done on a
motor-driven revolving disk covered with a polishing
cloth, using diamond polishing paste and spray (HFline)
to achieve a smooth, reflecting, scratch-free surface. The
polished specimens were etched with freshly prepared
solution of 90 ml hydrochloric acid and 15 ml of 30%
hydrogen peroxide for 30–60 seconds, after which they
were observed under an optical photomicroscope (Nikon,
Japan) at 50× and 200×.
RESULTS
All data concerning the mechanical properties are shown
in Tables 2 and 3.
343
Figure 2: Casting done for obtaining excess remelted (used) alloy for
mixing with respective groups.
Yield strength
The comparative values of yield strength between control
group A (1st melt alloy) and group B3 (4th melt alloy) is
−101.28*** (P>.01) shows statistically significant difference.
This indicates that repeated remelting of alloy B1 (2nd melt),
B2 (3rd melt), and B3 (4th melt) without addition of any new
alloy decreases the yield strength as compared to 100% new
alloy. On comparison of control group (group A) with group
C1 (75% by weight 1st melt alloy + 25% by weight new alloy)
and D1 (50% 1st melt alloy + 50% new alloy), the values of
yield strength obtained are −0.35 (P>.05), and −19.27 (P>.01),
respectively. On comparison with C2 (75% 2nd melt alloy +
25% new alloy), D2 (50% 2nd melt alloy + 50% new alloy)
having mean yield strength values of −51.28 (P>.01) and 51.28
(P>.01), respectively, there is again statistically significant
reduction in yield strength as compared to the control group.
Modulus of elasticity
The differences between the various groups with
regard to the modulus of elasticity is “is statistically
nonsignificant”clinically insignificant [Tables 2 and 3].
Percentage elongation
On comparing the mean values of percentage elongation
of the various groups with the control group we found
“we found statistically nonsignificant changes”clinical
insignificant changes.
Hardness
On comparing hardness values of group A (1st melt) with
group B2 (3rd melt alloy), and group B3 (4th melt alloy),
statistically significant changes are seen. However, on
comparison of group A (1st melt; 100% new alloy) with
groups C1 (75% 1st melt + 25% new alloy), D1 (50% 1st melt
+ 50% new alloy), C2 (75% 2nd melt + 25% new alloy), and
D2 (50% 2nd melt + 50% new alloy), the hardness value
shows no significant changes between the groups. Thus, with
repeated remelting there is significant decrease in values of
hardness, but on remixing new alloy there is recovery of
hardness value.
Indian Journal of Dental Research, 23(3), 2012
Evaluation of remelting and remixing new and used cobalt–chromium alloy upon mechanical properties Gupta and Mehta

Table 2: Comparative evaluation of the mean change in the values of mechanical properties control group (A) and groups
without addition of new alloy (B1, B2, and B3)
Groups Yield strength Modulus of Percentage Hardness
(Mpa) elasticity (Mpa) elongation (%) (VHN)
A (1st melt) −88.38*** + 1760.70 + 0.06 0
vs (0.085) (1719.18) (1.42) (3)
B1 (2nd melt) t = 1042.21 t = 1.024 t = 0.04 t=0
NS NS NS
A (1st melt) −101.72 +1573.63 +0.88 −27 **
vs (56.03) (1688.09) (1.39) (4.74)
B2 (3rd melt) t = 1.81 t = 0.93 t = 0.63 t = 5.69
NS NS NS
A (1st melt) −101.28*** +961.53 +0.37 −27 **
vs (0.085) (2274.20) (1.89) (4.74)
B3 (4th melt) t = 119.43 t = 0.43 t = 0.19 t = 5.69
NS NS
B1 (2nd melt) −13.34 −186.57 +0.82 −27 **
vs (56.03) (598.05) (1.32) (4.74)
B2 (3rd melt) t = 0.23 t = 0.31 t = 0.62 t = 5.69
NS NS NS
B1 (2nd melt) −12.90 −798.67 +0.43 −27 **
vs (0) (1637.06) (1.84) (4.74)
B3 (4th melt) t=∞ t = 0.49 t = 0.23 t = 5.69
NS NS NS
B2 (3rd melt) +0.44 −612.10 +1.25 0
vs (56.03) (1604.39) (1.81) (6)
B3 (4th melt) t = 0.0078 t = 0.38 t = 0.69 t=0
NS NS NS NS
(Mean difference ± S.D). NS: Nonsignificant P>.05 (By t test). *Significant P>.05, **Significant P>.01, ***Significant P>.01.

DISCUSSION vaporization or overheating and that this is directly related

It is an established fact that most dental laboratories reuse
base metal alloys for subsequent castings. We conducted a
telephonic survey of ten commercial dental laboratories in
the city of Mumbai, India, and found that almost all of them
reused alloy four to five times before discarding it. However,
these dental laboratories reused the alloy in combination
with new alloy, adding an equal proportion of the reused
alloy each time.
In the literature there are differences of opinion regarding
the addition of new alloy to reused alloy for subsequent
castings. Hesby and Co-workers[5] advocated that the metal
can be reused for at least four generations without addition
of any new alloy. In contrast, HarcourtHJ 2suggested
addition of new alloy of at least equal weight to old alloy
for subsequent castings. However, most of the previous
studies by HarcourtHJ,[2] Harcourt HJ and Cotterill WF,[3]
and Lewis[6] on remelting of Co–Cr alloys concluded that
with subsequent remelting there was change in alloy
composition, and this affected the mechanical properties
of the subsequent castings. In this study, the mean yield
strength values shows a gradual decrease from group
A (100% new alloy; 807.67 Mpa), to group B1 (2nd melt
alloy; 719.29 Mpa), B2 (3rd melt alloy; 705.95 Mpa), and B3
(4th melt alloy; 706.39 Mpa) [Table 2]. These findings are
in accordance with those of Lewis AJ,[6] who stated that
successive remelting of alloy results in the loss—to a greater
or lesser degree—of a number of trace elements either by
Indian Journal of Dental Research, 23(3), 2012
to the relative difficulty experienced in the remelting of
previously cast alloy.
Harcourt and Cotterill[4] after conducting 13 remelts of
Co–Cr alloy concluded that there is a definitive change
in composition and physical properties with remelting,
which eventually would lead to failure of frameworks
during service. He advocated addition of new alloy in the
proportion of at least an equal weight of old alloy to maintain
the castability and mechanical properties of the alloy.
In our study, addition of new alloy to the old alloy was done
in two ratios [Table 1]. In group C) we added 25% by weight
of new alloy to the reused alloy and in group D we added 50%
by weight of new alloy to reused alloy. Addition of new alloy
to the 1st melt alloy in group C1 (75% 1st melt alloy + 25%
new alloy) and group D1 (50% 1st melt alloy + 50% new alloy)
restored the value of yield strength closer to that of group A
(1st melt alloy). However, the difference in the mean value of
yield strength of groups C1 and D1 is statistically nonsignificant
[Table 3]. Thus, it appears that even with 25% addition of new
alloy to the 1st melt alloy, adequate mechanical properties and
castability of the used alloy is ensured.
Similarly, addition of new alloy to the 2nd melt (B1) alloy
in the proportion of C2 (25% by weight new alloy) and D2
(50% by weight new alloy) caused equal improvement in
the yield strength values [Figure 3]. Thus, it is clear that
repeated remelting of alloy causes a decrease in the yield
344
Evaluation of remelting and remixing new and used cobalt–chromium alloy upon mechanical properties Gupta and Mehta

Table 3: Evaluation of the mean changes in the mechanical properties for various groups as compared with control group
(A). Groups having no addition of new alloy are B1, B2, and B3 and the groups having various combination of new and used
alloy are C1, C2, D1, and D2
Groups Yield strength Modulus of Percentage Hardness
(Mpa) elasticity (Mpa) elongation (%) (VHN)
C1 (75% 1st melt + 25% new alloy) −0.35* +546.91 +0.33 −9
vs (0.085) (1697.20) (1.13) (3.53)
A (1st melt alloy) t = 4.12 t = 0.32 t = 0.68 t = 2.54
NS NS NS
C1 (75% 1st melt + 25% new alloy) +88.03* −1213.29 +0.71 −9
vs (0) (623.31) (1.04) (3.53)
B1 (2nd melt alloy) t=∞ t = 1.95 t = 0.68 t = 2.54
NS NS NS
C1 (75% 1st melt + 25% new alloy) +18.92 −426.32 + 1.16 −12.33
vs (0) (2615.42) (0.94) (6.05)
D1 (50% 1st melt + 50% new alloy) t=∞ t = 0.1630 t = 1.23 t = 2.03
NS NS NS NS
D1 (50% 1st melt + 50% new alloy) -19.27*** + 973.23 −0.39 +3.33
vs (0.085) (3067.17) (1.35) (5.76)
A (1st melt alloy) t = 227.24 t = 0. 32 t = 0.29 t = 0.57
NS NS NS
D1 (50% 1st melt + 50% new alloy) + 69.11 −786.97 −0.45 +3.33
vs (0) (2629.74) (1.27) (5.76)
B1 (2nd melt alloy) t=∞ t = 0. 30 t = 0.35 t = 0.57
NS NS NS NS
C2 (75% 2nd melt +25% new alloy) - 51.28*** + 1427.71 + 0.04 −30
vs (0.083) (1830.10) (1.32) (32.04)
A (1st melt alloy) t = 604.32 t = 0. 78 t = 0.03 t = 0.93
NS NS NS
C2 (75% 2nd melt + 25% new alloy) + 50.44 −145.93 −0.84 −30
vs (56.03) (866.79) (1.20) (32.04)
B2 (3rd melt alloy) t = 0.900 t = 0. 17 t = 0.70 t = 0.93
NS NS NS NS
C2 (75% 2nd melt + 25% new alloy) +0 −348.65 +0.95 −30
vs 0 (1112.99) (1.11) (32.04)
D2 (50% 2nd melt + 50% new alloy) t=0 t = 0. 31 t = 0.85 t = 0.93
NS NS NS NS
D2 (50% 2nd melt + 50% new alloy) -51.28*** +1336.36 +0.98 0
vs (0.085) (1826.33) (1.31) (3)
A (1st melt alloy) t = 604.32 t = 0. 97 t = 0.74 t=0
NS NS NS
D2 (50% 2nd melt +50% new alloy) +50.44 +202.73 +0.10 +27**
vs (56.03) (859.74) (1.20) (4.34)
B2 (3rd melt alloy) t = 0.900 t = 0. 24 t = 0.08 t = 5.69
NS NS NS NS
(Mean difference ±S.D)

strength, but with remixing of new alloy [25% by weight
(groups C1 and C2) or 50% by weight (groups D1 and D2)]
there is recovery of yield strength values.
According to Craig,[7] the minimum yield strength from
dental casting alloy must be at least 415 Mpa to withstand
the permanent deformation when used as partial denture
clasp. The value of yield strength obtained in this study for
all the groups was above 700 Mpa. Hence, according to our
study, addition of new alloy of 25% by weight (instead of
the standard practice of addition of 50% by weight) could be
safely considered up to the 3rd melt casting. However, with
increase in the number of remelts, it may be advisable to
increase the proportion of new alloy. Addition of new alloy
compensates for the changes in composition and ensures ease
of casting by maintaining the castability of alloy.
345
The mean values of modulus of elasticity obtained in the
study are not in accordance with the ADA specification, i.e.,
223.5 × 103 Mpa. It is said that the modulus of elasticity is an
inherent property of an alloy and is related to the composition
of alloy and is not affected by remelting. The reason the values
of modulus of elasticity obtained in this study diverged from
the expected values could be that the extensometer could
not be applied due to the relatively small size of testing area.
Hence, the true strain values were not available for calculating
the stress/strain ratio. However, the values show statistically
nonsignificant difference throughout.
The percentage elongation is important as an indicator
of the relative brittleness or ductility of the restoration.
The mean elongation values obtained in this study for
various groups—with and without combination of new
Indian Journal of Dental Research, 23(3), 2012
Evaluation of remelting and remixing new and used cobalt–chromium alloy upon mechanical properties Gupta and Mehta

alloys—shows statistically nonsignificant difference up to

the 4th melt [Tables 2 and 3]. Hence, addition of 25% alloy
by weight to the reused alloy will maintain the ductility of
the clasp, at least up to the 4th melt (group B3) studied. Also,
the effect of microporosity on the elongation value in this
study was taken care by taking industrial radiographs of the
testing specimen. All testing specimens were found to be
clear of such defects.

Hardness is the resistance of metal to deformation. The

present analysis shows that the hardness values show a drop
from 1st melt (373 VHN) to B3 (4th melt; 346 VHN), which
is statistically significant [Tables 2 and 3]. On addition of
new alloy in the ratio of 25% by weight (C1) to 1st melt
alloy brought about improvement in hardness values. The
difference between C1 (25% of new alloy to 1st melt) and
D1 (50% of alloy to 1st melt ) is statistically nonsignificant.
Thus addition of 25% new alloy to the 1st melt alloy can be
considered as adequate. Addition of new alloy in 25% and
50% by weight to 2nd melt alloy restores the hardness, and
the statistical analysis suggests that the difference between
C2 (75% 2nd melt + 25% new alloy) and D2 (50% 2nd melt
+ 50% new alloy) group is nonsignificant. Thus, 25% new
alloy can be effectively used up to 3rd melt casting.

The microstructure of Co–Cr alloy (Duranium) used in the

study basically shows cored dendrites in solid solution as
the matrix (gamma phase). This phase is responsible for
toughness and ductility of alloy. The second predominant
phase responsible for tensile strength of alloy is in the form
Figure 3: Mean yield strength (MPa) for various combinations of new
of carbide precipitates labeled as MC, M23C6, and M6C types, and used cobalt–chromium alloys.
where M could be molybdenum, chromium, or carbon.
According to Harcourt2, continuous spherical carbides
uniformly distributed results in high yield strength and
low ductility. Asgar K and Peyton FA[8] stated that spherical
and discontinuous carbides pattern free from eutectoid
composition and microporosities possess greater ductility
and elongation.

The microstructure picture for control group A (1st melt

alloy) shows primary and secondary dendrites in a solid
solution (gamma phase) [Figure 4]. However, for groups
B1 (2nd melt alloy), B2 (3rd melt alloy), and B3 (4th melt alloy)
[Figure 5], where remelting was done but no new alloy
was added, the dendrites became coarser, disordered, and
closely placed, with overall reduction in the gamma phase.
However, on addition of new alloy in 25% by weight to the
used alloy as in group C1 (75%1st melt alloy + 25% new alloy) Figure 4: Microstructure of group A (1st melt alloy) bar specimen
and C2 (75% 2nd melt + 25% new alloy), the dendrites become (50×) showing primary and secondary dendrites in a gamma phase
less coarse and there was also an increase in solid solution matrix.
(gamma phase) compared to group B2 and B3, suggesting
that addition of new alloy has improved the mechanical The microstructure of the samples is consistent with the
properties [Figure 6]. Group D1 (50% 1st melt alloy + 50% changes in the mean values of mechanical properties
new alloy) and D2 (50% 2nd melt alloy + 50% new alloy) obtained for the different groups in this study. For groups
predominantly show less of dendritic pattern and overall without addition of new alloy, there is a steady decrease in
precipitation of carbides in the gamma phase [Figure 7]. the yield strength and hardness value with each reuse there
Indian Journal of Dental Research, 23(3), 2012 346
Evaluation of remelting and remixing new and used cobalt–chromium alloy upon mechanical properties Gupta and Mehta
Figure 5: Microstructure of group B3 (4th melt alloy) bar specimen (50×)
showing closely packed, relatively coarse and irregular dendrites with
decreased content of gamma phase matrix (solid solution) as compared
to control group.
Figure 7: Microstructure of group D2 (50% 2nd melt alloy + 50% new
alloy) bar specimen (50×) showing little dendrites, with precipitation of
carbides in gamma phase matrix.
is a constant dip in the yield strength and hardness value,
with slight increase in the percentage elongation. Also, for
groups C1, C2, D1, and D2, where new alloy is added in 25%
and 50% combination to the 1st melt and 2nd melt alloy,
respectively, there is recovery of mechanical properties to
levels comparable to that of the control group. Thus, it can
be stated from this study that with remelting of alloy the
microstructure also changes. These changes could be because
of loss of certain minor elements as a result of repeated
remelting since there is no control of atmosphere over the
crucible. On addition of new alloy, the microstructure shows
strengthening of the primary phase, which is responsible for
toughness and crack resistance. Thus, addition of new alloy
compensates for the loss caused by remelting. Examination
of microstructure shows that with repeated remelting there
is formation of carbides of molybdenum, chromium, and
347
Figure 6: Microstructure of group C1 (75% 1st melt alloy + 25% new
alloy) bar specimen (50×) showing dendrites with decrease which are
less coarser than in the group without addition of new alloy (B1, B2,
and B3) in a gamma phase matrix.
carbon and that the dendrites become coarser, irregular,
and closely packed. On the other hand, addition of new
alloy causes the formation of spherical, continuous, and
uniformly spaced carbides within the solid solution, which
is important for fracture resistance.
Microstructure is a basic parameter that controls the
mechanical properties of an alloy and is directly related to
the mechanical properties in the sense that if there is any
change in the mechanical values a definitive change will
occur in the microstructure.
REFERENCES
1. Anusavice KJ, Cascone P. Dental casting and soldering alloys. In:
Anusavice KJ, Editor. Philip’s science of dental materials; St. Louis:
Missouri, Elsevier; 2003. p. 563-620.
2. Harcourt HJ. Remelting of cobalt–chromium alloys. Br Dent J
1962;112:198-204.
3. Harcourt HJ, Cotterill WF. Induction melting of Cobalt-Chromium alloys.
Br Dent J 1965;118:323 -9.
4. Lewis AJ. Changes in the composition of a nickel –base partial denture
casting alloy upon fusion and casting. Aust Dent J.1975;20:14-8.
5. Hesby DA, Kobes P, Garver DG, Pelleu GB Physical Properties of a
repeatedly used non-precious metal alloy. J Prosthet Dent 1980;44:
291-3.
6. Lewis AJ. The effects of remelting on the mechanical properties of a
nickel base partial denture casting alloy. Aust Dent J 1975;20:89-93.
7. Baran GR. Cast and wrought base-metal alloys. In: Craig RGm, Powers JM,
Editors. Restorative dental materials; St. Louis: Missouri,Mosby, Inc:
2002. p. 480-513.
8. Asgar K , Peyton FA . Effect of microstructure on the
physical properties of cobalt base alloys. J Dent Res 1961;
40:63-72
How to cite this article: Gupta S, Mehta AS. The effect of remelting various
combinations of new and used cobalt-chromium alloy on the mechanical
properties and microstructure of the alloy. Indian J Dent Res 2012;23:341-7.
Source of Support: Nil, Conflict of Interest: None declared.
Indian Journal of Dental Research, 23(3), 2012
Copyright of Indian Journal of Dental Research is the property of Medknow Publications & Media Pvt. Ltd. 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.