Comparative evaluation of tear strength and surface roughness of two maxillofacial silicone materials following disinfection: an invitro study

The Journal of the Indian Prosthodontic Society Pub Date : 2020-12-01 DOI:10.4103/0972-4052.306366

Rajat Lanzara

{"title":"Comparative evaluation of tear strength and surface roughness of two maxillofacial silicone materials following disinfection: an invitro study","authors":"Rajat Lanzara","doi":"10.4103/0972-4052.306366","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The Journal of Indian Prosthodontic Society | Volume 20 | Supplement 1 | December 2020 S19 Methodology: Four groups of materials were processed and tested in this study: Group 1(Control Group) IPS e.max Medium Opacity (Ivoclar Vivadent), Group 2Ceramill Zolid HT (Amann Girrbach), Group 3 Lava 3M ESPE Premium, Group 4 Weiland Zenostar (Ivoclar Vivadent). A total of 40 discs measuring 15mm in diameter and 1mm in thickness were prepared with each group consisting of 10 discs each. The translucencies of the specimens were determined by calculating the contrast ratio. Data was recorded using a spectrophotometer. The contrast ratios were calculated using the following equation:CR=Yb/Yw. Result: The median CR value was the highest for Group 2 followed by Group 4, Group 3 and Group 1 in that order. In general, lithium disilicate was found to be more translucent than all the tested brands of translucent zirconia. Conclusion: 1.All the translucent zirconia systems were less translucent than Lithium Disilicate. 2. Lava Plus HT and ZENOStar were found to be more translucent than Ceramill Zolid. 3. There was no statistically significant difference between the translucencies of Lava Plus HT and ZENOStar. DOI: 10.4103/0972-4052.306345 Comparative evaluation of tear strength and surface roughness of two maxillofacial silicone materials following disinfection: an invitro study","PeriodicalId":22708,"journal":{"name":"The Journal of the Indian Prosthodontic Society","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2020-12-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"The Journal of the Indian Prosthodontic Society","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.4103/0972-4052.306366","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}

引用次数: 0

Abstract

The Journal of Indian Prosthodontic Society | Volume 20 | Supplement 1 | December 2020 S19 Methodology: Four groups of materials were processed and tested in this study: Group 1(Control Group) IPS e.max Medium Opacity (Ivoclar Vivadent), Group 2Ceramill Zolid HT (Amann Girrbach), Group 3 Lava 3M ESPE Premium, Group 4 Weiland Zenostar (Ivoclar Vivadent). A total of 40 discs measuring 15mm in diameter and 1mm in thickness were prepared with each group consisting of 10 discs each. The translucencies of the specimens were determined by calculating the contrast ratio. Data was recorded using a spectrophotometer. The contrast ratios were calculated using the following equation:CR=Yb/Yw. Result: The median CR value was the highest for Group 2 followed by Group 4, Group 3 and Group 1 in that order. In general, lithium disilicate was found to be more translucent than all the tested brands of translucent zirconia. Conclusion: 1.All the translucent zirconia systems were less translucent than Lithium Disilicate. 2. Lava Plus HT and ZENOStar were found to be more translucent than Ceramill Zolid. 3. There was no statistically significant difference between the translucencies of Lava Plus HT and ZENOStar. DOI: 10.4103/0972-4052.306345 Comparative evaluation of tear strength and surface roughness of two maxillofacial silicone materials following disinfection: an invitro study

查看原文

微信好友朋友圈 QQ好友复制链接

本刊更多论文

两种颌面部有机硅材料消毒后撕裂强度和表面粗糙度的比较:体外研究

方法:本研究对四组材料进行处理和测试:1组(对照组)IPS e.max Medium Opacity (Ivoclar Vivadent)， 2组ceramill Zolid HT (Amann Girrbach)， 3组Lava 3M ESPE Premium, 4组Weiland Zenostar (Ivoclar Vivadent)。共制作直径15mm、厚度1mm的圆盘40个，每组10个。通过计算对比度来确定试样的透光率。用分光光度计记录数据。对比度的计算公式如下:CR=Yb/Yw。结果:组2中位CR值最高，4组次之，3组次之，1组次之。总的来说，发现二硅酸锂比所有测试品牌的半透明氧化锆更半透明。结论:1。所有的透明氧化锆体系都不如二硅酸锂体系透明。发现Lava Plus HT和ZENOStar比Ceramill Zolid更半透明。Lava Plus HT与ZENOStar的透明度差异无统计学意义。DOI: 10.4103/0972-4052.306345消毒后两颌面硅胶材料撕裂强度和表面粗糙度的比较评估:体外研究

本文章由计算机程序翻译，如有差异，请以英文原文为准。

求助全文

约1分钟内获得全文去求助

来源期刊

The Journal of the Indian Prosthodontic Society

自引率

0.00%

发文量