Journal of Failure Analysis and Prevention

, Volume 13, Issue 6, pp 765–770 | Cite as

A Microstructural and Fractographic Study on the Failure of Surgical Torch Meters

  • Cassio Barbosa
  • Ibrahim de Cerqueira Abud
  • Tatiana Silva Barros
  • Sheyla Santana de Carvalho
  • Ieda Maria Vieira Caminha
Technical Article---Peer-Reviewed


As in the case of implants, the increase of the life expectancy and of the risk of accidents, thus causing a higher incidence of surgeries, has led to an increased use of surgical instruments. The reliability of these instruments, used in applications of considerable responsibility, depends on the characteristics of the materials, as well as on the conditions of manufacture. Using some techniques such as optical microscopy, scanning electron microscopy, and hardness tests, this work has as purpose the identification of the possible causes of failure of surgical torch meters used for dental implants fixation, trying to correlate with the microstructural characteristics of the austenitic and martensitic stainless steels used in their manufacture. The results thus obtained allowed the identification of the main causes of the failure, primarily related to microstructural heterogeneities which resulted from inadequate heat treatment and with the presence of non-metallic inclusions, which favored brittle fracture and corrosion.


Failure analysis Torch meters Stainless steels Fracture Microcopy 



The authors thank Mauro de Melo Rodrigues and Rafael de Abreu Vinhosa for preparing metallographic samples, Progex/INT for supplying the samples, the Laboratory of Inorganic Chemical Analysis (LAQUA) of INT for chemical composition analysis and CENANO/INT for SEM images.


  1. 1.
    C.R.F. Azevedo, E. Hippert Jr., Failure analysis of surgical implants in Brazil. Eng. Fail. Anal. 9, 621–633 (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    C.R.F. Azevedo, E. Hippert Jr., Retrieval and analysis of surgical implants in Brazil: the need for proper regulation. Pract. Fail. Anal. 1, 53–61 (2001)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    G.K. Triantafyllidis, A.V. Kazantzis, K.T. Karageorgiou, Premature fracture of a stainless steel 316L orthopaedic plate implant by alternative episodes of fatigue and cleavage decoherence. Eng. Fail. Anal. 14, 1346–1350 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    M. Sivakumar, U. Kamachi Mudali, S. Rajeswari, Investigation of failures in stainless steel orthopaedic implant devices fatigue failure due to improper fixation of a compression bone plate. J. Mater. Sci. Lett. 13, 142–145 (1994)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    J. Breme, Titanium and titanium alloys, biomaterials of preference. Mèmoires et Études Scientifiques Revue de Métallurgie, Oct 1989, pp. 625–637Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    ISO 5832-1:2007, Implants for surgery metallic materials part 1: wrought stainless steel, part 2: commercially pure titanium, part 3: titanium alloysGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    ISO 15374:1998, Implants for surgery requirements for production of forgingsGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    ASTM B 348-93, Standard specification for titanium alloy bars and billets, 1993Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    ASTM F 67-89, Standard specifications for unalloyed titanium for surgical implant applications, 1989Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    ASTM F136-02, Standard specification for wrought titanium-6 aluminum 4 vanadium ELI (extra low interstitial) alloy for surgical implant applications (UNS R56401), 2002Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    ETTC2, Microstructural standards for titanium alloy barsGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    P. Spili, P. Parashos, H.H. Messer, The impact of instrument fracture on outcome of endodontic treatment. J. Endod. 31, 845–850 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    ISO 7153-1:1991, Surgical instruments metallic materials part 1: stainless steelGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    ISO 7151:1988, Surgical instruments non-cutting, articulated instruments general requirements and test methodsGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    ISO 13402:1995, Surgical and dental hand instruments determination of resistance against autoclaving, corrosion and thermal exposureGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    A.J. McEvily, Metal failures, mechanisms, analysis, prevention (Wiley, New York, 2002)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    ASM Handbook, Fractography, vol 12 (ASM International, Materials Park, 2009)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    R. Wouters, L. Froyen, Scanning electron microscope fractography in failure analysis of steels. Mater. Charact. 36, 357–364 (1996)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    ASM Handbook, Failure Analysis and Prevention, vol 11 (ASM International, Materials Park, 2004)Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    ASM Handbook, Properties and Selection: Irons, Steels and High-Performance Alloys, vol 1 (ASM International, Materials Park, 1990), 6th printing 2001Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    ASTM E3 11, Standard guide for preparation of metallographic specimensGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    ASTM E407- 07, Standard practice for microetching metals and alloysGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    ISO 6507-1- 05, Metallic materials Vickers hardness test part 1: test methodGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    ASTM E 45-13, Standard test methods for determining the inclusion content of steelGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    ASTM F899 12b: 2011, Standard specification for wrought stainless steels for surgical instrumentsGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    ASTM E140-05, Standard hardness conversion tables for metals relationship among Brinell hardness, Vickers hardness, Rockwell hardness, superficial hardness, Knoop hardness, and scleroscope hardnessGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© ASM International 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  • Cassio Barbosa
    • 1
  • Ibrahim de Cerqueira Abud
    • 1
  • Tatiana Silva Barros
    • 1
  • Sheyla Santana de Carvalho
    • 1
  • Ieda Maria Vieira Caminha
    • 1
  1. 1.Instituto Nacional de Tecnologia (INT)Rio de JaneiroBrazil

Personalised recommendations