不同抛光时长对氧化锆表面粗糙度和表面晶相的影响

目的:比较不同抛光时长对氧化锆表面粗糙度和晶相结构的影响.方法:氧化锆锆盘切割烧结制作锆片试件30个,烧结试件后表面使用500目砂纸进行同质性处理后在水冷状态下使用金刚砂车针进行表面调磨20 s,模拟临床调牙合过程,分为调磨未抛光组(GR组),调磨后上釉组(GL组),调磨后使用TOB套装抛光,每步骤抛光时长20 s(T...     

塑料基板表面粗糙度对其与硅橡胶粘结性能的影响

目的 :评估塑料基板表面粗糙度对塑料基板与SY -1型硅橡胶之间粘结性能的影响。方法 :按照国际标准 (ISO814 -86) ,对抛光后的以及经不同目数的砂纸打磨后的塑料义齿基板与SY -1型硅橡胶粘结后的拉块强度进行测试 ,并用粗糙度仪测量塑料表面的粗糙度 ,进行统计学分析。结果 :依次用 160目、3 2 0目、80 0目砂纸打磨塑料基板表面 ,其表面粗糙度依次减小 ,拉块强度依次增加 ;抛光后的拉块强度最小。结论 :在一定的范围之内 ,塑料义齿基板表面粗糙度越小 ,与SY -1型硅橡胶之间的粘结强度越大 ,故临床中粘结时建议采用目数高的砂纸进行基板表面处理     

3种义齿基托材料抛光后表面粗糙度的比较研究

目的研究3种义齿基托材料抛光前后的表面粗糙度度。方法选择聚甲基丙烯酸基托树脂（PMMA）、弹性义齿材料和不碎胶等3种义齿基托材料,将材料制成12mm×12mm×2mm的标准试件,每种材料各20个,对试件进行打磨和抛光后,采用表面轮廓测量仪检测材料抛光前后的表面粗糙度,通过扫描电镜对材料表面形貌进行表面观察。结果PMMA、弹性义齿材料和不碎胶抛光后表面粗糙度分别为（0．160±0．018）μm、（0．110±0．011）μm和（0．141±0．017）μ。弹性义齿材料和不碎胶的表面粗糙度低于PMMA（P〈0．05）,表面划痕也少于PMMA。结论弹性义齿材料和不碎胶更能获得抛光效果,表面粗糙度优于PMMA。     

纳米陶瓷与传统牙科陶瓷抛光性能的对比研究

目的：比较纳米陶瓷IMAGINE REFLEX与传统牙科陶瓷的抛光性能。方法：抛光过程中以粗糙度测试仪分别测试纳米陶瓷（IMAGINE REFLEX）和传统牙科陶瓷（VITA VMK 95）试件表面经240目,400目,600目,800目．1000目,1200目,1500目碳化硅水砂纸每级抛光后的粗糙度值并进行统计学分析。扫描电镜（SEM）观察试件表面形貌。结果：经相同目数砂纸抛光后,纳米陶瓷的粗糙度值显著低于传统陶瓷（P〈0．05）;纳米陶瓷在经400目、800目砂纸抛光后分别与传统陶瓷在经800目、1500目砂纸抛光后粗糙度值比较无显著性差异（P〉0．05）;SEM测试结果显示纳米陶瓷表面抛光后更为光滑规则,孔隙少而小。随着抛光粒度的逐级精细,两组瓷样本的表面粗糙度值稳步下降,在240目到800目阶段下降趋势明显,800目到1500目阶段下降趋势变缓;结论：纳米陶瓷IMAGINE REFLEX较传统牙科陶瓷Vita VMK95具有更好的抛光性能;在临床瓷修复体抛光时,抛光粒度越精细,越能获得理想的滑泽表面。     

抛光与上釉对牙科纳米陶瓷表面粗糙度的影响

目的比较抛光与上釉对纳米陶瓷表面粗糙度的影响。方法用纳米陶瓷粉(IMAGINEREFLEX)制备盘状试件40个,随机分为A、B两组。A组抛光组用240#~1500#碳化硅砂纸依次逐级打磨,最后用金刚砂抛光膏完成抛光。B组上釉组重新表面上釉。以粗糙度测试仪测试两组试件表面分别经抛光和表面上釉后表面粗糙度值并进行统计学分析,扫描电镜观察和评估样本表面形貌。结果纳米陶瓷IMAGENEREFLEX抛光组和上釉组表面粗糙度值无显著性差异(P>0.05);扫描电镜结果显示抛光组和上釉组表面无明显差异,均较为光滑,抛光组表面散在少量细小孔隙。结论对于纳米陶瓷的表面处理,抛光可以获得和重新上釉相同的表面光滑度。     

五种抛光方法对玻璃陶瓷表面粗糙度的影响研究#br#

目的    比较临床上5种常用抛光方法对IPS e.max Press玻璃陶瓷调磨后表面粗糙度的影响。方法    选取临床常用修复材料IPS e.max Press玻璃陶瓷制作试件30个,随机分成6组（每组5个试件）,分别为对照组（常规上釉）、砂石组（绿色碳化硅砂石+氧化铝白砂石依次混合打磨抛光）、松风组（松风Ceramaster精细烤瓷砂石抛光）、EVE组（EVE氧化锆砂石抛光）、道邦组（道邦弹性瓷砂石抛光）、3M组（3M Sof-LexTM抛光套装）。常规调磨后按照各自不同的整体抛光打磨方法分别对试件表面依次进行抛光,扫描电镜下观察各组抛光后试件的表面形态,检测各组抛光后试件的表面粗糙度Ra值。结果　扫描电镜下观察可见3M组和道邦组抛光后试件表面较为平整光滑,划痕较少,与对照组类似;而砂石组和松风组试件表面划痕明显并伴有明显的凹坑;EVE组划痕较少且划痕条纹较平整,方向一致,有少许凹痕较对照组明显。各组抛光后试件的表面粗糙度Ra值由小到大顺序排列为：3M组［（0.207 ± 0.016）μm］、对照组［（0.208 ± 0.015）μm］、道邦组［（0.216 ± 0.025）μm］、EVE组［（0.315 ± 0.017）μm］、松风组［（0.375 ± 0.030）μm］、砂石组［（0.379 ± 0.017）μm］;砂石组、松风组、EVE组Ra值均明显大于对照组（均P < 0.05）,而3M组、道邦组与对照组之间的差异无统计学意义（P > 0.05）。结论　5种抛光方法均能有效改善玻璃陶瓷表面粗糙度,不同抛光方法对IPS e.max Press玻璃陶瓷的抛光效果有一定的差异,以3M Sof-LexTM抛光套装抛光效果较佳。     

牙科陶瓷调磨后不同的抛光上釉方法对其表面性状的影响

目的牙科陶瓷调磨后比较不同的抛光上釉方式其表面的光泽度。方法 用V intage瓷粉制作盘状试件24个,均匀调磨后按不同的处理方式随机分成四组,以粗糙度测试仪测量各组的粗糙度值并进行统计学分析,体视显微镜和电子显微镜观察试件表面形貌。结果抛光和上釉表面粗糙度值无显著性差异（P〉0.05）;镜下观察四组试件表面结构及光滑度无明显差别。结论牙科陶瓷调磨后抛光可以达到与自身上釉相近似的效果。     

抛光过程中复合树脂表面粗糙和光泽度的变化

目的探讨抛光过程中复合树脂表面粗糙度和光泽度的变化规律。方法测定９种复合树脂抛光前的压接面及经过２４０目、３２０目、４００目、６００目、８００目、１２００目金刚砂纸抛光后抛光面的粗糙度值和光泽度值。结果随着由粗至细逐级抛光,粗糙度值稳步下降,至８００目时均恢复至抛光前的程度;而光泽度值在６００目以前变化甚微,８００目时骤然回升,至１２００目时有５种树脂已达到或超过抛光前的水平。结论复合树脂必须抛光至一定精细程度,才能获得理想的滑泽表面。     

5种抛光方法对钴铬烤瓷合金抗腐蚀性能的影响

目的 研究5种抛光方法对钴铬烤瓷合金抗腐蚀性能的影响.方法 制作30个钴铬烤瓷合金试样,随机分为5组,分别采用砂纸、金相布轮、橡皮轮、电解和化学方法进行抛光,测量试样的表面粗糙度.用浸泡实验检测试件在腐蚀液中浸泡后Co、Cr离子的析出量,并用扫描电镜观察试样浸泡前后的表面形貌.结果 电解抛光会破坏钴铬烤瓷合金试样,终止后续浸泡实验;化学抛光组表面粗糙度最大,为(0.35 ±0.09) μm,与其他组差异有统计学意义(P＜0.05).腐蚀液浸泡7d后,金相布轮抛光组试件Cr析出量最小,为(0.47 ±0.17) μg/cm2;化学抛光组试件Cr析出量最最多,为(2.34 ±0.76) μg/cm2,差异有统计学意义(P＜0.05).扫描电镜观察腐蚀液浸泡前的试件,金相布轮抛光和橡皮轮抛光可获得光滑表面,砂纸抛光和化学抛光后表面划痕明显;腐蚀液浸泡后各组表面划痕没有显著变化.结论 钴铬烤瓷合金采用金相布轮和橡皮轮抛光可获得较好的表面形貌和抗腐蚀性能,化学抛光对钴铬烤瓷合金表面形貌改善不大,其抗腐蚀性能最差.     

纳米非晶金刚石膜改善义齿基托表面变形链球菌黏附量的研究

目的:观察比较义齿基托材料镀用纳米非晶金刚石薄膜前后,表面变形链球菌黏附量变化情况,探索纳米非晶金刚石薄膜镀用义齿树脂基托表面后的抗菌可能性。方法:采用热凝牙托材料制作30mm×10mm×2mm标准试件30个。按不同粗糙度(280目、600目、1200目)分成3组,每组10个。相同粗糙度的10个试件再分成2组,每组5个,一组试件双面镀用纳米非晶金刚石薄膜作为实验组,一组不作处理作为对照组。结果:3组不同粗糙度试件实验组及对照组均存在变形链球菌黏附,实验组少于对照组,两者差异有显著性(1200目P<0.05;600及280目P<0.01);不论实验组还是对照组试件表面变形链球菌黏附量均随粗糙度增大而增多(P<0.05),实验组增多趋势相对较小。结论:纳米非晶金刚石薄膜能够改善义齿树脂基托表面的变形链球菌黏附量,具有部分抑菌功能。     

不同抛光方法对钴铬合金铸造义齿表面粗糙度及精度的影响

目的研究不同抛光方法对钴铬合金铸造义齿表面粗糙度及精度的影响。方法(1)制作30个30mm×10mm×1.5mm钴铬合金试件,选择1组作为对照组,其余各组分别用5种方法抛光光整技术、电解、打磨、打磨后再电解、打磨后再光整,测量其表面粗糙度;(2)铸造钴铬合金基托30个,选择1组作为对照组,其余各组用5种方法抛光,在相当于上颌第二磨牙远中部位切断义齿基托与标准模型,测量基托组织面与标准模型间5个部位的间隙。用SPSS13.0软件对数据进行方差分析。结果(1)抛光前,试件表面粗糙度值最大(Ra3.38μm),手工打磨后再光整组粗糙度值最小(Ra0.19μm)。除光整组、电解组试件之间的差别无统计学意义外(P>0.05),其余各组差别均有极显著统计学意义(P<0.01)。(2)各组试件的精度值在抛光前、后无统计学差异(P>0.05)。结论手工打磨后再进行光整的铸件表面粗糙度最低,光整抛光方法对上颌铸造基托的精度无影响。     

不同抛光方法对钴铬合金铸件表面质量及物理性能的影响

目的研究不同抛光方法对钴铬合金铸件表面质量及物理性能的影响。方法采用5种抛光方法抛光钴铬合金板试样,测量其表面粗糙度、硬度、弯曲强度、断裂强度和弹性模量,并对数据进行统计学分析。结果打磨后光整组试样表面粗糙度值最小(P<0.01);打磨后光整组试样的硬度较未抛光组要高(P<0.05);不同抛光方法抛光试样的弯曲强度,断裂强度与弹性模量无统计学差异。结论手工打磨后再进行光整的铸件表面粗糙度值最低,表面硬度增高;抛光方法对铸件物理性能无影响。     

Effects of polishing techniques on the surface roughness of acrylic denture base resins

STATEMENT OF PROBLEM: Rough surfaces of denture bases promote adhesion of microorganisms and plaque formation. It is therefore important to know how different polishing systems affect surface roughness of denture base acrylic resins. PURPOSE: The objective of this study was to compare the effects of 4 chairside polishing kits and 2 conventional laboratory techniques used for polishing 3 different acrylic denture base resins. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Using contact profilometric measurement, the surface texture of 54 specimens (15x30x3 mm) per acrylic material (autopolymerized ProBase Cold, heat-polymerized ProBase Hot, and injection heat-polymerized SR Ivocap plus) was studied before and after cutting with a tungsten carbide bur, and during and after chairside polishing with 4 polishing kits (Exa Technique, Acrylic Polisher HP blue, AcryPoint, Becht Polishing Cream), and after conventional polishing with 2 polishing systems (Universal Polishing Paste for Resins and Metals, Lesk Polishing Liquid). There were 9 specimens for each acrylic resin material and polishing method combination. Conventional lathe polishing with polishing paste served as the control. Mean average surface roughness (Ra) values of each specimen group were analyzed using a 2-way analysis of variance, the Scheffé post-hoc test, and paired t test (alpha=.05) with the Bonferroni adjustment. After testing the polished acrylic resin surfaces were evaluated under a scanning electron microscope. RESULTS: The highest mean average surface roughness (Ra=2.86+/-0.8 microm to 3.99+/-1.31 microm) was measured for surfaces finished with a tungsten carbide bur. The lowest surface roughness values (Ra=0.02+/-0.01 microm) were determined for acrylic resin specimens polished with a lathe and polishing paste. The Ra values of resin specimens after polishing with chairside silicone polishing kits ranged from 0.05+/-0.0 microm to 0.35+/-0.05 microm. Mean average Ra values of specimens polished with a polishing cream alone (Ra=1.01+/-0.17 microm to 1.68+/-0.47 microm) were significantly higher (P<.05) than those obtained with other polishing systems tested, which was confirmed by scanning electron microscope images of acrylic resin surfaces. Significant differences in mean average surface roughness were found between autopolymerizing and injected heat-polymerizing resin specimens. In addition, scanning electron microscopy revealed increased porosity of autopolymerizing resin specimens. CONCLUSIONS: Conventional laboratory polishing was found to produce the smoothest surface of denture base acrylic resin. Chairside silicone polishing kits produced a significantly smoother surface of acrylic resin than specimens polished with a tungsten carbide bur. The presence of large pores was characteristic for the autopolymerizing resin material.     

钴铬合金铸件表面研抛程序的评价

目的：确定合理的钴铬合金铸件表面研抛程序。方法：通过测量９０个钴铬合金试件的表面粗糙度,对８ 种常用的研抛程序进行评价。结果：钴铬合金试件表面最佳研抛程序为喷砂、绿色砂石、金刚砂橡皮轮或电解抛光、硬橡皮轮、擦有抛光绿的绒轮。结论：钴铬合金铸件表面按合乎逻辑的程序研抛才能获得较低的表面粗糙度。     

Effect of finishing and polishing procedures on the gap width between a denture base resin and two long-term, resilient denture liners

STATEMENT OF PROBLEM: The junction between a long-term, resilient denture liner and the denture base is difficult to finish and polish due to differences in the hardness of the materials. Gaps tend to form during finishing and polishing procedures. PURPOSE: This study measured the junctional gap between 2 long-term, resilient denture liners and a denture base material after different finishing and polishing procedures were performed. The surface smoothness of the 2 liner materials also was evaluated. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Molloplast-B and an experimental, heat-polymerized methyl siloxane-resin-based denture liner were processed (according to the manufacturer's instructions) against Lucitone 199 acrylic resin. Control specimens (n = 20) were 2 mm thick and flat. Experimental specimens (n = 64) were fabricated with a raised center section: a 3- x 5- x 15-mm half-cylindrical ridge with a junction at the top of the cylinder between the liner material and acrylic resin. The specimens were finished with 1 of 6 types of burs and polished with different combinations of rubber-impregnated acrylic polishers, pumice, and tin oxide. The finished specimens were examined and photographed with a scanning electron microscope, and the largest gap along the liner/denture base junction on each specimen was measured. Three-way analysis of variance without replication (P<.05) and post-hoc t tests were used to analyze the data and compare groups. RESULTS; Averaged across finishing and polishing techniques, a larger gap was recorded for the experimental liner material (22 microm) than for Molloplast-B (14 microm) (P<.00005). Qualitative evaluation suggested that the experimental liner material polished better than Molloplast-B. The smoothest surfaces were obtained when specimens were finished with fine-tooth cross-cut carbide burs and polished with both pumice and tin oxide. A comparison between polished and unpolished specimens, averaged over materials and finishing techniques, revealed that polishing reduced gap size (P=.015). CONCLUSION: Within the limitations of this study, the 2 denture liners tested behaved similarly. The results suggest that the size of the gap at the liner/denture base junction may be affected by finishing and polishing techniques and vary among materials.     

Surface roughness of new microhybrid resin-based composites

BACKGROUND: Rough, poorly polished resin-based composite (RBC) surfaces contribute to staining, plaque accumulation, gingival irritation and recurrent caries. Proper finishing and polishing enhance both the esthetics and the longevity of restored teeth. METHODS: The authors evaluated the influence of various finishing and polishing techniques on the surface roughness of four microhybrid RBCs. Thirty samples of each material were cured under Mylar matrix strips (Yates and Bird/Motloid, Chicago). All microhybrid RBC specimens were finished with multifluted carbide burs, except for the Mylar matrix strip samples, and then were polished using one of four finishing systems: Sof-Lex contouring and polishing disks (3M ESPE, St. Paul, Minn.); Enhance Finishing System (Dentsply-Caulk, Milford, Del.) followed by Prisma Gloss (Dentsply-Caulk) polishing paste application; Astropol finishing, polishing and high-gloss polishing system (Ivoclar Vivadent, Schaan, Liechtenstein); and Astrobrush polishing system (Ivoclar Vivadent). The authors tested the samples to obtain average surface roughness and analyzed the values. RESULTS: The use of the Astrobrush technique caused the greatest roughness on all RBC specimens. The smoothest surface was produced with a carbide bur followed by aluminum oxide disks, Astropol technique and Enhance technique. Overall, there were differences in surface quality among the materials. InTen-S (Ivoclar Vivadent) had statistically lower surface roughness values after finishing and polishing with the Astrobrush technique, compared with the other RBCs. CONCLUSION: The highest surface roughness values were achieved after the Astrobrush technique was used. The Sof-Lex aluminum oxide disks, and Enhance and Astropol techniques provided the smoothest surface. CLINICAL IMPLICATIONS: The Sof-Lex, Enhance and Astropol techniques produced a smooth surface after the finishing and polishing of materials, while the Astrobrush technique yielded the least favorable results.     

��ͬ�׹ⷽ���������ܸ��Ͻ���������Ӱ���о�

目的比较不同抛光方法对钴铬合金离子析出的影响。方法本研究于2013年3—8月在福建医科大学附属口腔医院进行。制作30个钴铬合金试样,随机分为5组,分别为砂纸抛光组、镜面抛光组、橡皮轮抛光组、电解抛光组和化学抛光组,每组6个试样。根据ISO10271：201l标准采用浸泡实验检测试样Co、cr离子的析出情况。检测腐蚀前的表面粗糙度和腐蚀前后表面形貌。结果镜面抛光组co、cr析出量之和小于橡皮轮抛光组、电解抛光组和化学抛光组（P〈0．05）。化学抛光组表面粗糙度最大（P〈0．05）。化学抛光组co、cr析出量及其总和均大于砂纸抛光组、镜面抛光组、橡皮轮抛光组、电解抛光组（P〈0．05）。扫描电镜观察表明,砂纸抛光组、橡皮轮抛光组、化学抛光组表面有明显的腐蚀痕迹。结论钴铬合金经镜面抛光可获得最好的表面形貌和抗腐蚀性能,化学抛光对钴铬合金表面形貌改善不大,其抗腐蚀性能最差。     

不同抛光方法对牙科钴铬合金离子析出影响研究

目的 比较不同抛光方法对钴铬合金离子析出的影响。方法 本研究于2013年3—8月在福建医科大学附属口腔医院进行。制作30个钴铬合金试样,随机分为5组,分别为砂纸抛光组、镜面抛光组、橡皮轮抛光组、电解抛光组和化学抛光组,每组6个试样。根据ISO 10271：2011标准采用浸泡实验检测试样Co、Cr离子的析出情况。检测腐蚀前的表面粗糙度和腐蚀前后表面形貌。结果 镜面抛光组Co、Cr析出量之和小于橡皮轮抛光组、电解抛光组和化学抛光组（P < 0.05）。化学抛光组表面粗糙度最大（P < 0.05）。化学抛光组Co、Cr析出量及其总和均大于砂纸抛光组、镜面抛光组、橡皮轮抛光组、电解抛光组（P < 0.05）。扫描电镜观察表明,砂纸抛光组、橡皮轮抛光组、化学抛光组表面有明显的腐蚀痕迹。结论 钴铬合金经镜面抛光可获得最好的表面形貌和抗腐蚀性能,化学抛光对钴铬合金表面形貌改善不大,其抗腐蚀性能最差。     

3种抛光方法对树脂表面粗糙度影响的比较

目的通过定性与定量分析比较3种抛光方法对3种不同树脂表面粗糙度的影响。方法将3种不同类型的树脂制作成15个直径为5mm,厚度为3mm的圆柱本样本,随机分为3组：Sof—Lex抛光碟组．Brilliant Gloss橡皮抛光尖组,One Gloss橡皮抛光尖组。抛光后用轮廓测定仪在样本测试面中心区测表面粗糙度（Ra）,然后每个小组中随机选取1个样本,采用原子力显微镜观察其表面微观形貌。结果Sof-Lex、One Gloss抛光后,3种不同树脂的Ra均值差异有统计学意义（P〈0．05）、单因素方差分析结果显示材料组之间、抛光方法组之间Ra均值差异均有统计学意义（P〈0．05）,且组内两两比较结果显示同种树脂3种抛光方法之间Ra均值差异有统计学意义（P〈0．05）：多因素方差分析结果显示材料类型和抛光方法均会影响树脂表面粗糙度,二者具有明显交互作用（P〈0．01）原子力显微镜观察结果显示Sof-Lex和BrilliantGloss抛光后树脂表面相对均一,OneGloss抛光后树脂表面有划痕、空穴、填料颗粒突出等结构。结论3种树脂之间、3种不同抛光方法之间Ra均值差异均存在统计学患义,抛光效果具有材料依赖性。