Suppr超能文献

义齿基托丙烯酸树脂加工后及抛光后的表面粗糙度

Surface roughness of denture base acrylic resins after processing and after polishing.

作者信息

Berger Julie C, Driscoll Carl F, Romberg Elaine, Luo Qing, Thompson Geoffrey

机构信息

Department of Endodontics, Prosthodontics, and Operative Dentistry, Baltimore College of Dental Surgery, University of Maryland, Baltimore, MD 21201, USA.

出版信息

J Prosthodont. 2006 May-Jun;15(3):180-6. doi: 10.1111/j.1532-849X.2006.00098.x.

Abstract

PURPOSE

Circumstances exist in which the need to adjust denture base acrylic resins is necessary. This process obviously alters the surface of the polished denture base. The purpose of this study was to compare the effects of three chairside polishing kits and conventional polishing on four denture acrylic resins.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Twenty-four 30 x 30 x 2 mm acrylic resin specimens were fabricated with each of four acrylic resins: autopolymerizing, heat processed, injection molded, and microwaveable. One side was polished conventionally with pumice and polishing compound. The other side was polished with one of three chairside polishing kits: Axis, Brasseler, and Shofu. Each side was evaluated by a Dektak 8 Programmable Stylus Profiler to determine the surface roughness (Ra).

RESULTS

One-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) revealed that: (1) There was no significant difference in the time it took to polish the specimens with the chairside polishing kits (F=2.118, p=0.14). (2) There was a significant difference in surface roughness between the acrylic resins before any polishing, with the injection-molded and heat-processed being less rough than the autopolymerizing (F=4.588, p=0.005). (3) There was a significant difference in surface roughness between the acrylic resins when conventionally polished, with the injection-molded and microwavable being less rough than the autopolymerizing (F=4.503, p=0.005). Factorial ANOVA revealed that: (1) There was no significant difference in the surface roughness among the chairside polishing kits (F=1.209, p=0.30). (2) There was a significant difference between the acrylic resins, with the heat-processed, injection-molded, and microwaveable being significantly less rough than the autopolymerizing (F=6.610, p=0.0001). (3) There was no significant interaction between the acrylic resins and the chairside polishing kit in the amount of surface roughness (F=1.728, p=0.12). An independent t-test revealed that conventional polishing was significantly smoother than polishing with the chairside polishing kits (t=3.847, p=0.0001).

CONCLUSIONS

It was concluded that time was not a factor in using any of the chairside polishing kits. It is recommended that conventional polishing be used after adjustments to the cameo surface of denture acrylic resin.

摘要

目的

存在需要调整义齿基托丙烯酸树脂的情况。此过程显然会改变义齿基托抛光面。本研究的目的是比较三种椅旁抛光套装和传统抛光对四种义齿丙烯酸树脂的影响。

材料与方法

用四种丙烯酸树脂(自凝、热凝、注塑成型和可微波固化)分别制作24个30×30×2mm的丙烯酸树脂试件。一侧用浮石和抛光膏进行传统抛光。另一侧用三种椅旁抛光套装之一(Axis、Brasseler和Shofu)进行抛光。每一侧均通过Dektak 8可编程触针轮廓仪进行评估,以确定表面粗糙度(Ra)。

结果

单因素方差分析显示:(1)使用椅旁抛光套装抛光试件所需时间无显著差异(F=2.118,p=0.14)。(2)在任何抛光之前,丙烯酸树脂之间的表面粗糙度存在显著差异,注塑成型和热凝的粗糙度低于自凝树脂(F=4.588,p=0.005)。(3)传统抛光时,丙烯酸树脂之间的表面粗糙度存在显著差异,注塑成型和可微波固化的粗糙度低于自凝树脂(F=4.503,p=0.005)。析因方差分析显示:(1)椅旁抛光套装之间的表面粗糙度无显著差异(F=1.209,p=0.30)。(2)丙烯酸树脂之间存在显著差异,热凝、注塑成型和可微波固化的粗糙度显著低于自凝树脂(F=6.610,p=0.0001)。(3)丙烯酸树脂与椅旁抛光套装在表面粗糙度程度上无显著交互作用(F=1.728,p=0.12)。独立样本t检验显示,传统抛光比使用椅旁抛光套装抛光显著更光滑(t=3.847,p=0.0001)。

结论

得出结论,使用任何一种椅旁抛光套装时时间不是一个影响因素。建议在调整义齿丙烯酸树脂的浮雕面后采用传统抛光。

文献AI研究员

20分钟写一篇综述,助力文献阅读效率提升50倍。

立即体验

用中文搜PubMed

大模型驱动的PubMed中文搜索引擎

马上搜索

文档翻译

学术文献翻译模型,支持多种主流文档格式。

立即体验