Veres E M, Wolfaardt J F, Becker P J
Department of Prosthetic Dentistry, University of Witwatersrand, School of Dentistry, Johannesburg, South Africa.
J Prosthet Dent. 1990 Mar;63(3):325-31. doi: 10.1016/0022-3913(90)90206-r.
Silicone elastomers do not have an inherent surface texture but take on the surface texture of the surface against which they are processed. This study compares the surface texture of Cosmesil material, a purpose-designed facial prosthetic elastomer, and Molloplast-B material, which is a well-established material for use in the clinic. We used a profilometer to determine the roughness average, maximum roughness, and waviness of the dies, control, gypsum, and silicone test surfaces. Statistical analyses of results involved multivariate analyses of variance and Tukey's procedures to compare roughness average, maximum roughness, and waviness (in all cases p less than 0.05). The results showed that the silicone elastomers, Cosmesil and Molloplast-B, have similar surface characteristics. The only statistically significant difference was in waviness (Molloplast-B, means = 10.82 microns; Cosmesil, means = 12.82 microns). The gypsum surface yielding the most satisfactory result was the surface that had been treated with silicone paste separator. On the basis of surface characteristics, Cosmesil material is likely to cause no more surface trauma of the tissue against which it is placed than the use of Molloplast-B material.
硅橡胶弹性体本身没有表面纹理，而是呈现出其加工时所接触表面的纹理。本研究比较了专门设计用于面部修复的弹性体Cosmesil材料和临床常用的Molloplast - B材料的表面纹理。我们使用轮廓仪来测定模具、对照、石膏和硅橡胶测试表面的平均粗糙度、最大粗糙度和波纹度。结果的统计分析采用多变量方差分析和Tukey方法来比较平均粗糙度、最大粗糙度和波纹度（在所有情况下，p值均小于0.05）。结果表明，硅橡胶弹性体Cosmesil和Molloplast - B具有相似的表面特征。唯一具有统计学显著差异的是波纹度（Molloplast - B，平均值 = 10.82微米；Cosmesil，平均值 = 12.82微米）。产生最满意结果的石膏表面是经过硅酮膏分离器处理的表面。基于表面特征，与使用Molloplast - B材料相比，Cosmesil材料对其所接触组织造成的表面创伤可能不会更大。
