The Journal of prosthetic dentistry · 1999
Effectiveness of polymerization of a prosthetic composite using three polymerization systems.
Сравнительное исследованиеСтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Tanoue N, Matsumura H, Atsuta M
Аннотация
STATEMENT OF PROBLEM: Although properties of laboratory-polymerized composite materials are influenced by the type of polymerizing unit, little information is available regarding the comparison between use of a high-intensity light source and application of secondary heat treatment.
PURPOSE: This study examined properties of a prosthetic veneering composite polymerized with 3 polymerizing systems to evaluate the effects of varying polymerization modes on hardness, solubility, and depth of cure.
MATERIAL AND METHODS: A composite material designed for a prosthetic veneer (Conquest Crown and Bridge) was polymerized using 3 methods: (1) exposure in the proprietary photopolymerizing unit with 2 halogen lamps (Cure-Lite Plus), followed by heating in an oven (Conquest Automatic Curing Unit); (2) exposure in a photopolymerizing unit with a xenon stroboscopic light source (Dentacolor XS); and (3) exposure in a photopolymerizing unit with 2 metal halide lamps (Hyper LII). Knoop hardness, water solubility, and depth of cure were determined for groups of 5 specimens, according to standardized testing methods. Data were compared using analysis of variance and the Duncan new multiple range test (P <.05).
RESULT: The hardness number generated with the metal halide unit was statistically greater than those produced by the other 2 methods, and material component released into water was minimal when the material was exposed with the metal halide unit (P <.05). Among the 3 photopolymerizing units, the metal halide unit consistently exhibited the greatest depth of cure.
CONCLUSION: Certain properties generated with the use of the high-intensity polymerizing unit exceeded those obtained from a proprietary system that requires a postheat treatment.
PURPOSE: This study examined properties of a prosthetic veneering composite polymerized with 3 polymerizing systems to evaluate the effects of varying polymerization modes on hardness, solubility, and depth of cure.
MATERIAL AND METHODS: A composite material designed for a prosthetic veneer (Conquest Crown and Bridge) was polymerized using 3 methods: (1) exposure in the proprietary photopolymerizing unit with 2 halogen lamps (Cure-Lite Plus), followed by heating in an oven (Conquest Automatic Curing Unit); (2) exposure in a photopolymerizing unit with a xenon stroboscopic light source (Dentacolor XS); and (3) exposure in a photopolymerizing unit with 2 metal halide lamps (Hyper LII). Knoop hardness, water solubility, and depth of cure were determined for groups of 5 specimens, according to standardized testing methods. Data were compared using analysis of variance and the Duncan new multiple range test (P <.05).
RESULT: The hardness number generated with the metal halide unit was statistically greater than those produced by the other 2 methods, and material component released into water was minimal when the material was exposed with the metal halide unit (P <.05). Among the 3 photopolymerizing units, the metal halide unit consistently exhibited the greatest depth of cure.
CONCLUSION: Certain properties generated with the use of the high-intensity polymerizing unit exceeded those obtained from a proprietary system that requires a postheat treatment.