不同调拌板对玻璃离子水门汀物理性能的影响

目的:研究不同调拌工具对玻璃离子水门汀材料物理性能的影响。方法:在相同条件下,分别采用纸板、玻璃调拌板和硅胶调拌板对3种玻璃离子水门汀进行调拌,待其凝固后进行抗压强度、表面粗糙度、表面硬度测试。实验按照调拌板材料不同分为纸板组、硅胶板组、玻璃板组3大组,其中纸板组按照纸张厚度不同又分为纸20页组、纸40页组、纸60页组;硅胶板组按照邵氏硬度分为硅胶40组、硅胶60组、硅胶80组。结果:(1)抗压强度:①ChemFil Superior 玻璃离子材料(CF):硅胶40组平均抗压强度最高,与硅胶60组、纸20页组和纸60页组组间差异有统计学意义(P值分别为0.002、0.027、0.036);②而至富士IX GP玻璃离子材料(IX):纸20页组平均抗压强度最高,与硅胶60组的差异有统计学意义(P=0.008);③Glaslonomer FX-Ⅱ玻璃离子材料(FX):硅胶40组平均抗压强度最高,与纸20页组差异无统计学意义(P>0.05),与其他组差异有统计学意义(P<0.05)。(2)表面硬度:①CF:硅胶40组平均硬度最高,与纸40页组、纸60页组、硅胶60组、硅胶80组、玻璃板组两两比较的差异有统计学意义(P值分别为0.021、0.001、0.032、0.008、0.016);②IX:各组间的差异无统计学意义(P>0.05);③FX:各组间的差异无统计学意义(P>0.05)。(3)表面粗糙度: ①CF:各组间差异无统计学意义(P>0.05);②IX:玻璃板组平均表面粗糙度最低,与纸40页组和纸60页组比较差异有统计学意义(P值分别为0.003、0.027),与其他组差异无统计学意义(P>0.05);③FX:玻璃板组平均表面粗糙度最低,与纸60页组比较差异有统计学意义(P=0.018)。结论:采用硅胶40调拌板调拌玻璃离子可以获得更高的抗压强度和更低的表面粗糙度,值得推广。

Influence of different mixing pads on physical and mechanical properties of glass ionomer cement

Objective: To analyze the influence of different mixing pads on the physical and mechanical properties of glass ionomer cement.Methods: Three different glass ionomer base cements were mixed with a plastic spatula on three different mixing pads including paper pad, glass pad and silicon pad whose HS were 40, 60 and 80. The GIC was packed into stainless steel molds to get specimens. Surface roughness、surface hardness and compressive strength were evaluated. Results: As for compressive strength, CF: There was the highest mean compressive strength that was significantly higher than those of silicon pad 60 group, paper 60 group and paper 20 group in silicon pad 40 group,the differences P values were 0.002 0.027, and 0.036, statistically significant difference between the above groups (P<0.05). IX:there was the highest mean compressive strength that was significantly higher than those of silicon pad 60 group in paper pad 20 group,the differences P value was 0.008, statistically significant (P<0.05). FX:there was the highest mean compressive strength that was no significantly higher than those of paper pad 20 group in silicon pad 40 group, but was significantly higher than those of the other groups. As for surface hardness, CF: there was the highest mean surface hardness that was significantly higher than those of silicon pad 60 and 80 group, paper 60 group in silicon pad 40 group, the differences P value was 0.021, 0.001, 0.032, 0.008 and 0.016, statistically significant difference between the above groups (P<0.05). IX and FX: there was no statistical significance between any two groups in surface hardness. As for surface roughness, CF: there was no statistical significance between any two groups in surface roughness. IX: there was the lowest mean surface roughness that was significantly lower than those of paper pad 40 and 60 group in glass pad group, the differences P values were 0.003 and 0.027, statistically significant difference between the above groups (P<0.05). FX: there was the lowest mean surface roughness that was significantly lower than those of paper pad 60 group in glass pad group, the differences P value was 0.018, showing a statistical difference (P<0.05). Conclusion:Mixing glass ionomer cement on silicon pad 40 results in higher compressive strength and lower surface roughness, worthy of clinical popularization.