Sinavarat Potchaman, Anunmana Chuchai, Muanjit Thitima
Department of Prosthodontics, Faculty of Dentistry, Mahidol University.
Dent Mater J. 2016;35(1):76-81. doi: 10.4012/dmj.2015-147.
This study compared the fracture toughness values (KIC), which were derived from simplified techniques: the indentation fracture (IF), the indentation strength (IS), and fractographic approach to that from a standard testing using surface cracks in flexure (SCF). Forty bar specimens, twenty IPS Empress(®) Esthetic and twenty IPS e.max(®)Ceram were prepared. Ten specimens in each material were tested by IF technique, IS technique and fractographic approach, and additional 10 specimens were tested by the SCF technique. This study showed that the mean KIC derived from fractographic approach were not significantly different from that of the SCF in both materials (p>0.05) whereas the mean KIC from indentation techniques rarely agreed with those of the standard technique. The KIC determination is sensitive to the methods used that affect accuracy. Consequently, test selection should be based on a sound understanding and inherent limitations of each technique.
本研究比较了通过简化技术得出的断裂韧性值(KIC):压痕断裂(IF)、压痕强度(IS)以及断口分析方法所得结果与使用表面裂纹弯曲试验(SCF)的标准测试结果。制备了40个棒状试样,其中20个IPS Empress(®) Esthetic和20个IPS e.max(®) 全瓷材料试样。每种材料的10个试样通过IF技术、IS技术和断口分析方法进行测试,另外10个试样通过SCF技术进行测试。本研究表明,两种材料通过断口分析方法得出的平均KIC与SCF方法所得结果无显著差异(p>0.05),而压痕技术得出的平均KIC很少与标准技术结果一致。KIC的测定对所用方法敏感,这些方法会影响准确性。因此,测试方法的选择应基于对每种技术的充分理解及其固有局限性。