Surface roughness of denture base acrylic resins after processing and after polishing.
Surface roughness of denture base acrylic resins after processing and after polishing.
复制标题
DOI：
10.1111/j.1532-849x.2006.00098.x
复制
发表时间：
2006-05-01
期刊：
影响因子：
--
通讯作者：
Thompson, Geoffrey
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Berger, Julie C;Driscoll, Carl F;Thompson, Geoffrey
目的：在某些情况下，需要调整义齿基托丙烯酸树脂。这个过程明显改变了抛光义齿基托的表面。本研究的目的是比较三个椅旁抛光套件和传统的抛光对四个义齿丙烯酸树脂的影响。材料和方法：24个30 × 30 × 2 mm的丙烯酸树脂标本制作与四个丙烯酸树脂：autopolymerizing，热处理，注塑成型，和微波。一面用浮石和抛光剂进行常规抛光。另一面用三种椅旁抛光工具之一抛光：Axis，Quereler和Shofu。结果：单因素方差分析（ANOVA）结果显示：（1）椅旁抛光工具组与椅旁抛光工具组抛光时间无显著性差异（F=2.118，p=0.14）; (2)在任何抛光之前，丙烯酸树脂之间的表面粗糙度存在显著差异，注塑成型和热处理的粗糙度低于自聚合（F=4.588，p=0.005）。(3)当常规抛光时，丙烯酸树脂之间的表面粗糙度存在显著差异，其中注塑成型和可微波处理的表面粗糙度小于自聚合的表面粗糙度（F=4.503，p=0.005）。析因方差分析显示：（1）椅旁抛光套件的表面粗糙度无显著差异（F=1.209，p=0.30）。(2)丙烯酸树脂之间存在显著差异，热处理、注塑和微波处理的丙烯酸树脂比自聚合的丙烯酸树脂粗糙度显著降低（F=6.610，p=0.0001）。(3)在表面粗糙度方面，丙烯酸树脂和椅旁抛光套件之间没有显著的相互作用（F=1.728，p=0.12）。一个独立的t检验显示，传统的抛光明显比抛光与椅边抛光套件（t=3.847，p=0.0001）。结论：它的结论是，时间不是一个因素，在使用任何椅边抛光套件。建议在对义齿丙烯酸树脂的浮雕表面进行调整后使用常规抛光。
PURPOSE: Circumstances exist in which the need to adjust denture base acrylic resins is necessary. This process obviously alters the surface of the polished denture base. The purpose of this study was to compare the effects of three chairside polishing kits and conventional polishing on four denture acrylic resins.MATERIALS AND METHODS: Twenty-four 30 x 30 x 2 mm acrylic resin specimens were fabricated with each of four acrylic resins: autopolymerizing, heat processed, injection molded, and microwaveable. One side was polished conventionally with pumice and polishing compound. The other side was polished with one of three chairside polishing kits: Axis, Brasseler, and Shofu. Each side was evaluated by a Dektak 8 Programmable Stylus Profiler to determine the surface roughness (Ra).RESULTS: One-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) revealed that: (1) There was no significant difference in the time it took to polish the specimens with the chairside polishing kits (F=2.118, p=0.14). (2) There was a significant difference in surface roughness between the acrylic resins before any polishing, with the injection-molded and heat-processed being less rough than the autopolymerizing (F=4.588, p=0.005). (3) There was a significant difference in surface roughness between the acrylic resins when conventionally polished, with the injection-molded and microwavable being less rough than the autopolymerizing (F=4.503, p=0.005). Factorial ANOVA revealed that: (1) There was no significant difference in the surface roughness among the chairside polishing kits (F=1.209, p=0.30). (2) There was a significant difference between the acrylic resins, with the heat-processed, injection-molded, and microwaveable being significantly less rough than the autopolymerizing (F=6.610, p=0.0001). (3) There was no significant interaction between the acrylic resins and the chairside polishing kit in the amount of surface roughness (F=1.728, p=0.12). An independent t-test revealed that conventional polishing was significantly smoother than polishing with the chairside polishing kits (t=3.847, p=0.0001).CONCLUSIONS: It was concluded that time was not a factor in using any of the chairside polishing kits. It is recommended that conventional polishing be used after adjustments to the cameo surface of denture acrylic resin.