Dental materials : official publication of the Academy of Dental Materials · 2003
The effect of investment material and ceramming regime on the surface roughness of two castable glass-ceramic materials.
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.
Johnson A, van Noort R, Hatton P V, Walsh J M
Аннотация
OBJECTIVE: To assess the surface roughness (R(a)) of two castable glass-ceramic materials, cast using four different investment materials and employing different ceramming regimes.
METHODS: Forty discs, each 12 mm diameter and 2 mm thick were produced from two castable glass-ceramic materials, one a glass ionomer derivative based on 1.5SiO(2)-1Al(2)O(3)-0.53P(2)O(5)-1CaO-0.67CaF(2) (LG112), the other a fluorcanasite material based on 0.60SiO(2)-0.05K(2)O-0.10Na(2)O-0.15CaO-0.10CaF(2) (SG3). The discs were made using four dental investments, two gypsum-bonded (Whip-Mix Cristobalite (WMC), Degussa California (DC)) and two phosphate-bonded (Fujivest Super (FS), Techceram Glass (TG)). A Ni-Cr metal/ceramic alloy (Wiron 99) was also used as a control. Each investment was used to produce 10 discs for each glass-ceramic material, five left in the as-cast, glass state, the other five cerammed. Ceramming was carried out either within the investment mold or after de-vesting from the investment mold. The discs had their surface roughness values measured using a stylus, surface contact measuring instrument.
RESULTS: For the Ni-Cr alloy the phosphate-bonded investments produced discs significantly smoother than those produced by the two gypsum-bonded investments (p<0.05). The FS investment produced the smoothest discs (p<0.05), but there was no significant difference between the discs produced by the two gypsum-bonded investments (p>0.05). For the SG3 material no significant differences were seen between the as-cast glass and cerammed discs (p>0.05), with the WMC investment producing the smoothest discs (p<0.05), and the TG investment the roughest (p<0.05). The LG112 material showed a significant difference between glass and cerammed discs for the gypsum-bonded investments (p<0.05) but not when using phosphate-bonded investments (p>0.05). With LG112 the WMC investment produced smoother discs than the DC and TG investments (p<0.05). The DC investment produced rougher discs than the two phosphate-bonded investments (p<0.05).
SIGNIFICANCE: The selection of investment material can have a significant effect on the as-cast surface finish of castable glass-ceramic materials. A gypsum-bonded investment material gave smoother surface finishes compared to phosphate-bonded investments. The ceramming process significantly increases surface roughness.
METHODS: Forty discs, each 12 mm diameter and 2 mm thick were produced from two castable glass-ceramic materials, one a glass ionomer derivative based on 1.5SiO(2)-1Al(2)O(3)-0.53P(2)O(5)-1CaO-0.67CaF(2) (LG112), the other a fluorcanasite material based on 0.60SiO(2)-0.05K(2)O-0.10Na(2)O-0.15CaO-0.10CaF(2) (SG3). The discs were made using four dental investments, two gypsum-bonded (Whip-Mix Cristobalite (WMC), Degussa California (DC)) and two phosphate-bonded (Fujivest Super (FS), Techceram Glass (TG)). A Ni-Cr metal/ceramic alloy (Wiron 99) was also used as a control. Each investment was used to produce 10 discs for each glass-ceramic material, five left in the as-cast, glass state, the other five cerammed. Ceramming was carried out either within the investment mold or after de-vesting from the investment mold. The discs had their surface roughness values measured using a stylus, surface contact measuring instrument.
RESULTS: For the Ni-Cr alloy the phosphate-bonded investments produced discs significantly smoother than those produced by the two gypsum-bonded investments (p<0.05). The FS investment produced the smoothest discs (p<0.05), but there was no significant difference between the discs produced by the two gypsum-bonded investments (p>0.05). For the SG3 material no significant differences were seen between the as-cast glass and cerammed discs (p>0.05), with the WMC investment producing the smoothest discs (p<0.05), and the TG investment the roughest (p<0.05). The LG112 material showed a significant difference between glass and cerammed discs for the gypsum-bonded investments (p<0.05) but not when using phosphate-bonded investments (p>0.05). With LG112 the WMC investment produced smoother discs than the DC and TG investments (p<0.05). The DC investment produced rougher discs than the two phosphate-bonded investments (p<0.05).
SIGNIFICANCE: The selection of investment material can have a significant effect on the as-cast surface finish of castable glass-ceramic materials. A gypsum-bonded investment material gave smoother surface finishes compared to phosphate-bonded investments. The ceramming process significantly increases surface roughness.