Rodrigues Garcia Renata Cunha Matheus, Joane Augusto de Souza, Rached Rodrigo Nunes, Del Bel Cury Altair Antoninha
Department of Prosthodontics and Peridontology, School of Dentistry of Piracicaba, University of Campinas, Brazil.
J Prosthodont. 2004 Sep;13(3):173-8. doi: 10.1111/j.1532-849X.2004.04028.x.
This study evaluated the effect of denture cleansers on the surface hardness of a denture base resin, and on the surface roughness of the resin and Co-Cr and Ti-6Al-4V alloys.
Forty-eight disc-shaped specimens were fabricated of a microwave-cured acrylic resin, each having one of the alloys attached to its surface. The specimens were randomly divided into 6 groups, each consisting of 8 samples. Specimens were exposed to one of the three cleansing treatments (polident, manipulation pharmacy cleanser, and water) as follows. Group I: Co-Cr + polident; Group II: Co-Cr + manipulation; Group III: Co-Cr + water; Group IV: Ti-6Al-4V + polident; Group V: Ti-6Al-4V + manipulation; and Group VI: Ti-6Al-4V + water. Three exposures lasting 5 minutes each were conducted daily, and repeated after storage periods of 1, 14, and 29 days in artificial saliva at 37 degrees C. Hardness and roughness measurements were undertaken immediately after specimen preparation (T0) and on the 1st (T1), 15th (T15), and 30th (T30) day following the beginning of storage. Three roughness and hardness evaluations were carried out for each sample and testing time, and mean values were calculated. Results were analyzed using ANOVA and linear regression.
The Knoop hardness test demonstrated differences (p < 0.05) between Groups I and IV at T1 and T30 (14.30 +/- 2.78; 14.06 +/- 1.76) and between Groups II and V at T15 (16.99 +/- 2.24). Significant differences (p < 0.05) in resin roughness (in microm) were observed between Groups I and IV at T15 and T30 (0.14 +/- 0.06; 0.21 +/- 0.38). With regard to Co-Cr, roughness data showed differences (p < 0.05) for all groups at T30 (Group I: 0.15 +/- 0.07; Group II: 2.43 +/- 0.66; Group III: 4.05 +/- 1.03), for Group II at T1 (0.10 +/- 0.03), and for Group I at T15 (0.15 +/- 0.02). There were significant differences (p < 0.05) in titanium roughness for Group IV at T15 (0.12 +/- 0.01) and T30 (0.11 +/- 0.04).
Manipulated cleanser containing sodium perborate increased surface roughness and hardness, probably due to its incapacity to remove the pellicle formed on the acrylic resin and dental alloys.
本研究评估了义齿清洁剂对义齿基托树脂表面硬度、树脂以及钴铬合金和钛 - 6Al - 4V 合金表面粗糙度的影响。
用微波固化丙烯酸树脂制作 48 个圆盘形试件，每个试件表面附着一种合金。将试件随机分为 6 组，每组 8 个样本。试件接受以下三种清洁处理之一（保丽净、自制药房清洁剂和水）。第一组：钴铬合金 + 保丽净；第二组：钴铬合金 + 自制清洁剂；第三组：钴铬合金 + 水；第四组：钛 - 6Al - 4V + 保丽净；第五组：钛 - 6Al - 4V + 自制清洁剂；第六组：钛 - 6Al - 4V + 水。每天进行三次暴露，每次持续 5 分钟，并在 37℃人工唾液中储存 1、14 和 29 天后重复进行。在试件制备后立即（T0）以及储存开始后的第 1 天（T1）、第 15 天（T15）和第 30 天（T30）进行硬度和粗糙度测量。对每个样本和测试时间进行三次粗糙度和硬度评估，并计算平均值。结果采用方差分析和线性回归进行分析。
努氏硬度测试表明，在 T1 和 T30 时，第一组和第四组之间存在差异（p < 0.05）（14.30 ± 2.78；14.06 ± 1.76），在 T15 时，第二组和第五组之间存在差异（16.99 ± 2.24）。在 T15 和 T30 时，第一组和第四组之间的树脂粗糙度（微米）存在显著差异（p < 0.05）（0.14 ± 0.06；0.21 ± 0.38）。对于钴铬合金，在 T30 时所有组的粗糙度数据存在差异（p < 0.05）（第一组：0.15 ± 0.07；第二组：2.43 ± 0.66；第三组：4.05 ± 1.03），在 T1 时第二组存在差异（0.10 ± 0.03），在 T15 时第一组存在差异（0.15 ± 0.02）。在 T15（0.12 ± 0.01）和 T30（0.11 ± 0.04）时，第四组的钛粗糙度存在显著差异（p < 0.05）。
含有过硼酸钠的自制清洁剂增加了表面粗糙度和硬度，可能是由于其无法去除在丙烯酸树脂和牙科合金上形成的薄膜。
