高分子义眼材料表面的粗糙度及硬度

背景：高分子义眼材料的物理性能，如密度、硬度、机械强度等都影响义眼的加工精度，影响义眼表面的粗糙度，最终影响义眼戴用的舒适度。目的：比较不同高分子义眼材料气泡生成率、硬度及表面粗糙度的差别。  方法：将7种品牌的高分子义眼材料分别制作为30 mm×30 mm×2 mm的试件，分别为A、B、C、D、E、F、G 7组，每组5个。按照由粗到细的原则，分别对每一试件其中一个面进行抛光，并测量两个面的表面粗糙度值，抛光面硬度值，计算材料内部气泡生成率。结果与结论：A-G组的粗糙度值分别为(0.078±0.016)，(0.074±0.019)，(0.075±0.022)，(0.066±0.020)，(0.075±0.017)，(0.068±0.015)，(0.067±0.017) μm，各组间比较差异无显著性意义；硬度值分别为766.92±3.71，771.84±14.51，791.20 ±9.64，804.50±4.49，779.00±17.92，772.20±19.18，704.00±7.23，D组和G组与其余各组间比较差异有显著性意义(P < 0.05)，D组和G组之间比较差异有显著性意义        (P < 0.05)，其余各组间比较差异无显著性意义；气泡生成率分别为(8.87±0.29)%，(8.29±1.02)%，(6.94±0.43)%，(4.83±0.20)%，(7.59±0.19)%，(8.61±0.25)%，(4.89±0.17)%，D组和G组与其余各组间比较差异有显著性意义(P < 0.05)，D组和G组间比较差异无显著性意义，其余各组间比较差异无显著性意义。在一定程度上说明气泡生成率越小，硬度越大，表面粗糙度越小。中国组织工程研究杂志出版内容重点：生物材料；骨生物材料; 口腔生物材料; 纳米材料; 缓释材料; 材料相容性；组织工程全文链接：

Surface roughness and hardness of macromolecule ocular prosthesis materials

BACKGROUND: The physical properties of macromolecule ocular prosthesis materials, such as density, hardness, mechanical strength, can affect the working accuracy of ocular prosthesis and can also affect the surface roughness of ocular prosthesis, thus affecting the comfort when the patients wear.OBJECTIVE: To study the differences of different macromolecule ocular prosthesis materials in bubble generation rate, hardness and surface roughness.METHODS: Thirty-seven test pieces, 30 mm×30 mm×2 mm, were made and then divided to seven groups according to their brands, called groups A, B, C, D, E, F, G, each group of five pieces. One surface of each test piece was polished in accordance with the principle of coarse to fine, the surface roughness of the two surfaces and hardness on the polished surface were measured, and then the bubble formation rate of the material was calculated.RESULTS AND CONCLUSION:The surface roughness values of groups A-G were (0.078±0.016), (0.074±0.019), (0.075±0.022), (0.066±0.020), (0.075±0.017), (0.068±0.015), and (0.067±0.017) μm, respectively. There was no significant difference in the surface roughness between the groups (P > 0.05). The hardness values of groups A-G were 766.92±3.71, 771.84±14.51, 791.20±9.64, 804.50±4.49, 779.00±17.92, 772.20±19.18, 704.00±7.23, respectively. There was a significant difference in the hardness between groups D, G and the other groups (P < 0.05) as well as between group D and group G (P < 0.05), but there was no significant difference  between the other groups (P > 0.05). The bubble generation rates of groups A-G were (8.87±0.29)%, (8.29±1.02)%, (6.94±0.43)%, (4.83±0.20)%, (7.59±0.19)%, (8.61±0.25)%, (4.89±0.17)%, respectively. There was a significant difference in the bubble generation rate between groups D, G and the other groups (P < 0.05), but there was no significant difference between group D and group G (P > 0.05), as well as between the other groups (P > 0.05). To a certain extent, the smaller the bubble formation rate is, the greater the hardness and the smaller the surface roughness are.