首页> 外文学位 >Comparison of porcelain surface and fractural strength obtained by microwave and conventional oven glazing.
【24h】

Comparison of porcelain surface and fractural strength obtained by microwave and conventional oven glazing.

机译:比较微波和常规烤箱上光得到的瓷器表面和断裂强度。

获取原文
获取原文并翻译 | 示例

摘要

Purpose. The present study was designed to investigate the surface roughness and fractural strength achieved by glazing porcelain samples in a conventional and microwave oven.; Aims. Specific aims were to study and compare surface roughness (measured by means of a profilometer), fractural strength (measured by Instron Universal testing machine) and cracks and porosities (studied with the help of SEM sections).; Hypothesis. The research hypothesis was that there will be a difference in the surface character and fractural strength of hand polished, microwave glazed and oven glazed samples. Specifically, it is hypothesized that microwave glazed samples will show smoother surfaces and higher fractural strength than hand polished and conventional oven glazed samples.; Materials and methods. Two commercial dental porcelains were used, Omega 900 (Vita) and d.Sign (Ivoclar-Vivadent. Inc.). A total of 60 samples were made, 30 for each type of porcelain. The samples were sintered in the conventional oven and finished with medium grit diamond to remove any irregularities.; Ten samples from each type of porcelain were further divided into three groups: hand polished, microwave glazed and conventional oven glazed. Each specimen was evaluated for surface roughness and fractural strength. The surfaces and fracture sites of specimens were subjectively evaluated for cracks and porosities using scanning electron microscope. Results were analyzed statistically using two way analyses of variance (ANOVA).; Results. A significant difference in surface roughness was found among the surface treatments of porcelains (F2,54 = 3.98, p = 0.02). There was no significant main effect for porcelain (F1,54 = 2.46, p = 0.12) and no significant interaction between surface treatment and porcelain type (F2,54 = 1.11, p = 0.34). Follow up tests showed a significant difference in surface roughness between oven glazed and microwave glazed treatments (p 0.05) but no significant difference between oven glazed and hand polished samples or between microwave glazed and hand polished samples.; There was also a significant difference in fractural strength between the two porcelains (F1,54 = 25.47, p 0.001) but no significant difference in fractural strength by surface treatment (F2,54 = 0.74, p = 0.48) and no significant interaction between porcelain type and surface treatment (F2,54 = 2.27, p = 0.11).; The surface of microwave glazed porcelain samples showed remarkably fewer voids and appeared to be smoother when compared to conventional oven glazed samples. Omega 900 samples appeared to have fewer voids and surface imperfections when compared to d.Sign samples.; Conclusions. The surface character of microwave glazed dental porcelain was superior to oven glazed dental porcelain. Polishing alone without glazing was comparable to glazing with microwave or conventional oven. Irrespective of the manner in which the samples were treated, Omega 900 porcelain samples had an overall higher fractural strength than the d.Sign porcelain samples. When viewed under the scanning electron microscope, the external surface voids and imperfections seen in the samples of d.Sign porcelain exceeded those seen in the samples of Omega 900 porcelain. The presence of voids is suggested as one reason for lower values of fractural strength for d.Sign samples.
机译:目的。本研究旨在研究在常规烤箱和微波炉中给瓷器样品上釉所获得的表面粗糙度和断裂强度。目的具体目的是研究和比较表面粗糙度(通过轮廓仪测量),断裂强度(通过Instron Universal试验机测量)以及裂纹和孔隙率(借助SEM截面进行研究)。假设。研究假设是,手工打磨,微波上光和烤箱上光的样品的表面特性和断裂强度会有所不同。具体而言,假设与手抛光和常规烤箱釉样品相比,微波釉样品将显示出更光滑的表面和更高的断裂强度。材料和方法。使用了两种商用牙科瓷器,Omega 900(Vita)和d.Sign(Ivoclar-Vivadent。Inc.)。总共制作了60个样本,每种瓷器样本30个。样品在常规炉中烧结,并用中等粒度的金刚石精加工以除去任何不规则物。每种瓷器的十个样品进一步分为三组:手工抛光,微波上釉和常规烤箱上釉。评价每个样品的表面粗糙度和断裂强度。使用扫描电子显微镜主观评估样品的表面和断裂部位的裂纹和孔隙率。使用两种方差分析(ANOVA)对结果进行统计分析。结果。在瓷器的表面处理之间发现表面粗糙度有显着差异(F2,54 = 3.98,p = 0.02)。瓷器没有显着的主要作用(F1,54 = 2.46,p = 0.12),表面处理和瓷器类型之间没有显着的相互作用(F2,54 = 1.11,p = 0.34)。后续测试表明,烤箱釉和微波釉处理之间的表面粗糙度有显着差异(p <0.05),但烤箱釉和手工抛光样品之间或微波釉和手工抛光样品之间的表面粗糙度没有显着差异。两种瓷器之间的断裂强度也有显着差异(F1,54 = 25.47,p <0.001),但表面处理后的断裂强度没有显着差异(F2,54 = 0.74,p = 0.48),并且两者之间没有显着的相互作用瓷的类型和表面处理(F2,54 = 2.27,p = 0.11);与常规烤箱釉样品相比,微波釉陶瓷样品的表面显示出明显更少的空隙,并且看起来更光滑。与d.Sign样品相比,Omega 900样品似乎具有更少的空隙和表面缺陷。结论。微波釉面牙科瓷器的表面特性优于烤箱釉面牙科瓷器。无需抛光的单独抛光与使用微波炉或常规烤箱的抛光可比。不管样品的处理方式如何,Omega 900瓷器样品的整体断裂强度均比d.Sign瓷器样品高。在扫描电子显微镜下观察时,d.Sign瓷器样品中发现的外表面空隙和缺陷超过了Omega 900瓷器样品中的发现。建议空洞的存在是d.Sign样品断裂强度较低的原因之一。

著录项

  • 作者

    Prasad, Soni.;

  • 作者单位

    State University of New York at Buffalo.$bOral Sciences.;

  • 授予单位 State University of New York at Buffalo.$bOral Sciences.;
  • 学科 Health Sciences Dentistry.
  • 学位 M.S.
  • 年度 2007
  • 页码 71 p.
  • 总页数 71
  • 原文格式 PDF
  • 正文语种 eng
  • 中图分类 口腔科学;
  • 关键词

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
获取原文

客服邮箱:kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备:11010802029741号 ICP备案号:京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有
  • 客服微信

  • 服务号