el-Kalla I H, García-Godoy F
University of Texas Health Science Center at San Antonio, Department of Restorative Dentistry 78284-7888, USA.
Oper Dent. 1999 Jan-Feb;24(1):2-8.
The purpose of this study was to measure the compressive strength, flexural strength, microhardness, and surface roughness of three compomers (Compoglass, Dyract, and Hytac) and compare the values to the ones obtained for a resin-modified glass-ionomer cement (Vitremer) and a resin composite (Z100). All materials were handled according to the manufacturers' instructions. There was a significant difference (P < 0.01) among Vitremer, Hytac and Z100 composite with regard to yield strength. Vitremer values were lower than for Hytac, which were lower than for Z100. The yield strength values for Compoglass and Dyract were significantly lower than for Hytac and Z100 composite and significantly higher than for Vitremer (P < 0.01). There was no significant difference in the strain at yield among Vitremer, Hytac, and Z100, but their values were significantly higher than for Compoglass and Dyract (P < 0.01). The flexural strength data displayed a significant difference between Vitremer and Hytac (P < 0.05). Z100 was significantly stronger than the other products tested. The values of strain at break for Vitremer, Hytac, and Z100 were significantly lower than for Compoglass and Dyract (P < 0.01). The compressive strength results showed significantly higher values for Dyract, Compoglass, and Hytac than for Vitremer (P < 0.01). Z100 displayed higher values than the other products tested (P < 0.01). Hytac strength was significantly higher than for Dyract (P < 0.01). The microhardness of Compoglass and Dyract was not significantly different (P < 0.05). Hytac displayed microhardness values higher than for Vitremer, Compoglass, and Dyract (P < 0.01). However, all products tested showed values significantly lower than for Z100 (P < 0.01). The surface roughness values for Compoglass, Dyract, Hytac, and Z100 were not significantly different. Vitremer displayed a significantly higher value than Dyract, Hytac, and Z100 (P < 0.05).
本研究的目的是测量三种复合体（Compoglass、Dyract和Hytac）的抗压强度、抗弯强度、显微硬度和表面粗糙度，并将这些值与树脂改性玻璃离子水门汀（Vitremer）和树脂复合材料（Z100）所获得的值进行比较。所有材料均按照制造商的说明进行处理。在Vitremer、Hytac和Z100复合材料之间，屈服强度存在显著差异（P < 0.01）。Vitremer的值低于Hytac，Hytac的值低于Z100。Compoglass和Dyract的屈服强度值显著低于Hytac和Z100复合材料，且显著高于Vitremer（P < 0.01）。Vitremer、Hytac和Z100之间的屈服应变没有显著差异，但它们的值显著高于Compoglass和Dyract（P < 0.01）。抗弯强度数据显示Vitremer和Hytac之间存在显著差异（P < 0.05）。Z100比其他测试产品显著更强。Vitremer、Hytac和Z100的断裂应变值显著低于Compoglass和Dyract（P < 0.01）。抗压强度结果显示，Dyract、Compoglass和Hytac的值显著高于Vitremer（P < 0.01）。Z100显示的值高于其他测试产品（P < 0.01）。Hytac的强度显著高于Dyract（P < 0.01）。Compoglass和Dyract的显微硬度没有显著差异（P < 0.05）。Hytac显示的显微硬度值高于Vitremer、Compoglass和Dyract（P < 0.01）。然而，所有测试产品显示的值均显著低于Z100（P < 0.01）。Compoglass、Dyract、Hytac和Z100的表面粗糙度值没有显著差异。Vitremer显示的值显著高于Dyract、Hytac和Z100（P < 0.05）。
