• 主题
高级搜索  >
历史搜索 清空历史
首页> 外文期刊>Acta biomaterialia >Influence of the bonding substrate in dental composite polymerization stress testing.
【24h】

Influence of the bonding substrate in dental composite polymerization stress testing.

机译：粘合基材在牙科复合聚合应力测试中的影响。

获取原文
获取原文并翻译 | 示例
           
页面导航
  • 摘要
  • 著录项
  • 相似文献
  • 相关主题

摘要

Our objective was to compare the polymerization stress (sigma(pol)) of a series of composites obtained using poly(methyl methacrylate) (PMMA) or glass as bonding substrates, and to compare the results with those from in vitro microleakage of composite restorations. The tested hypothesis was that stress values obtained in a less rigid testing system (i.e. using PMMA) would show a better relationship with microleakage data. Five dental composites were tested: Filtek Z250 (FZ), Z100 (Z1), Concept (CO), Durafill (DU) and Heliomolar (HM). sigma(pol) was determined in 1mm high specimens inserted between two rods (O=5mm) of either PMMA or glass. The composite elastic modulus (E) was obtained by three-point bending. sigma(pol) and E data were submitted to a one-way analysis of variance/Tukey test (alpha=0.05). For the microleakage test (MI), bovine incisors received cylindrical cavities (O=5mm, h=2mm), which were restored in bulk. After storage for 24h in water, specimens were subjected to dye penetration using AgNO(3) as tracer. Specimens were sectioned twice, perpendicularly, and microleakage was measured (in millimeters) under 20x magnification. Data from MI were submitted to the Kruskal-Wallis test. Means (SD) of sigma(pol) (MPa) using glass/PMMA were FZ: 7.5(1.8)(A)/2.5(0.2)(bc); Z1: 7.3(0.5)(A)/2.8(0.3)(ab); CO: 6.8(1.1)(A)/3.2(0.5)(a); DU: 4.5(0.7)(B)/2.0(0.2)(bc); HM: 3.5(0.2)(B)/2.3(0.3)(c). sigma(pol) obtained using PMMA rods were 34-67% lower than with glass. Means (SD) for tooth average/tooth maximum microleakage were FZ: 0.92(0.19)(B)/1.53(0.30)(a); Z1: 1.19(0.21)(A)/1.75(0.20)(a); CO: 1.26(0.25)(A)/1.78(0.24)(a); DU: 0.83(0.30)(B)/1.68(0.46)(a); HM: 0.81(0.27)(B)/1.64(0.54)(a). The tested hypothesis was confirmed, as the composites showed the same ordering both in the polymerization stress test using PMMA rods and in the microleakage test.
机译：我们的目的是将使用聚（甲基丙烯酸甲酯）（PMMA）或玻璃作为粘合基材的一系列复合材料的聚合应力（Sigma（POL））进行比较，并将结果与​​来自复合修复体的体外微漏分的结果进行比较。测试的假设是在较刚性的测试系统中获得的应力值（即使用PMMA）将显示与微额外欠额数据的关系更好。测试了五种牙科复合材料：Filtek Z250（FZ），Z100（Z1），概念（CO），Durafill（DU）和Heliomolar（HM）。在1mm高标本中测定σ（pol）在PMMA或玻璃的两根杆（O = 5mm）之间。复合弹性模量（e）通过三点弯曲得到。 SIGMA（POL）和E数据提交到方差/ TUKEY测试的单向分析（alpha = 0.05）。对于微透盖测试（MI），牛肠道接收圆柱形腔（o = 5mm，H = 2mm），其在块状中恢复。在水中储存24小时后，使用Agno（3）作为示踪剂进行试样进行染料渗透。将标本垂直，垂直于两次，测定（以毫米）在20倍放大率下测量微额。 MI的数据提交给Kruskal-Wallis测试。使用玻璃/ PMMA的Sigma（POL）（MPa）的平均值（SD）为FZ：7.5（1.8）（a）/ 2.5（0.2）（BC）; Z1：7.3（0.5）（a）/ 2.8（0.3）（ab）; CO：6.8（1.1）（a）/ 3.2（0.5）（a）; du：4.5（0.7）（b）/2.0（0.2）（BC）; HM：3.5（0.2）（b）/ 2.3（0.3）（c）。使用PMMA棒获得的Sigma（POL）比玻璃低34-67％。用于牙齿平均/齿最大微滤镜的装置（SD）为FZ：0.92（0.19）（b）/ 1.53（0.30）（a）; Z1：1.19（0.21）（a）/1.75（0.20）（a）; CO：1.26（0.25）（a）/1.78（0.24）（a）; du：0.83（0.30）（b）/1.68（0.46）（a）; HM：0.81（0.27）（b）/1.64（0.54）（a）。确认测试的假设，因为复合材料在使用PMMA棒和微透盖测试中显示了相同的聚合应力测试中的排序。

著录项

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