| 两种树脂嵌体技术的机械性能对比 |
| |
| 引用本文： | 刘成光,邓婧,袁昌青.两种树脂嵌体技术的机械性能对比[J].青岛大学医学院学报,2011,47(5):453-455. |
| |
| 作者姓名： | 刘成光 邓婧 袁昌青 |
| |
| 作者单位： | 青岛大学医学院附属医院口腔科,山东青岛,266003 |
| |
| 摘 要： | 目的 比较TESCERA和CERAMAGE两种嵌体固化机与其配套树脂所制作试件的机械性能,为临床应用提供实验依据.方法 应用TESCERA固化机与其配套树脂(A组)和CERAMAGE固化机与其配套树脂(B组)制作标准试件,测试两组试件表面硬度、抗压强度和挠曲强度,并进行比较.结果 A组表面硬度、抗压强度高于B组,挠曲强...
|
| 关 键 词： | 复合树脂类 硬度试验 抗压强度 嵌入法 |
COMPARISON OF MECHANICAL PROPERITIES OF TWO MASTIC INLAY TECNIQUES |
| |
| LIU CHENG-GUANG,DENG JING,YUAN CHANG-QING.COMPARISON OF MECHANICAL PROPERITIES OF TWO MASTIC INLAY TECNIQUES[J].Acta Academiae Medicinae Qingdao Universitatis,2011,47(5):453-455. |
| |
| Authors: | LIU CHENG-GUANG DENG JING YUAN CHANG-QING |
| |
| Institution: | (Department of Orthodontics,The Affiliated Hospital of Qingdao University Medical College,Qingdao 266003,China) |
| |
| Abstract: | Objective To compare the mechanical properities between TESCERA and CERAMAGE machine and their fatigue test piece made of integrated resin. Methods Standard test specimens were made using TESCERA machine and its supporting resin(group A),and CERAMAGE machine and its support resin(group B).Surface hardness,compressive strength and flexural strength of the specimens were tested and compared. Results The surface hardness and compressive strength were stronger in group A than that in group B,while flexural strength was weaker in group A,with significant differences between them(F=13.98-420.25,P<0.05). Conclusion A comprehension evaluation,in terms of the compressive strength,surface hardness and flexural strength,indicates that the mechanical function of specimens made by group-A technique is better. |
| |
| Keywords: | composite resins hardness tests compressive strength inlays |
| 本文献已被 CNKI 万方数据 等数据库收录！ |
|
