水在固定弹性压印材料上的接触角比较。

IF 1.2 4区 医学 Q3 DENTISTRY, ORAL SURGERY & MEDICINE Journal of the Canadian Dental Association Pub Date : 2018-05-01
Usama Nassar, Faraz Tavoossi, Yan Wen Pan, Nathan Milavong-Viravongsa, Giseon Heo, John A Nychka
{"title":"水在固定弹性压印材料上的接触角比较。","authors":"Usama Nassar,&nbsp;Faraz Tavoossi,&nbsp;Yan Wen Pan,&nbsp;Nathan Milavong-Viravongsa,&nbsp;Giseon Heo,&nbsp;John A Nychka","doi":"","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Purpose: </strong>The hydrophilicity of some elastomeric impression materials has not been fully established. The purpose of this study was to measure and compare the advancing contact angle of water on the surface of several set elastomeric impression materials.</p><p><strong>Materials and methods: </strong>We tested various consistencies of vinyl polysiloxane (VPS; Imprint 4) and vinyl polyether silicone (VPES; EXA'lence) with a polyether (PE; Impregum Soft) control. Impression discs (25.07 mm) were made using a metal die and ring. Deionized ultra-filtered water was placed on each disc and contact-angle measurements were made at 0, 15, 30, 45 and 60 s using a video contact angle drop shape analysis machine. The data were analyzed using repeated ANOVA and a post-hoc test with Bonferroni correction.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>VPS contact angles reached a mean of 10.1° ± 0.2° at 60 s vs. 40.7° ± 0.1° for VPES. Overall, VPS contact angles were smaller than those for VPES at all measured times. However, heavy and super quick heavy VPS had much higher contact angles at 0 s compared with other VPS consistencies. There was a significant difference in contact angles between VPS and VPES (mean difference 33.9°, p < 0.05) and between VPS and PE (mean difference 32.8°, p < 0.05) but not between VPES and PE (P = 0.196). VPS heavy and super quick heavy were significantly different from other VPS materials (p < 0.05), but not from each other (p = 1.00).</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Set VPS is more hydrophilic than VPES. Contact-angle values of VPS indicated super hydrophilicity. VPES was hydrophilic, with measurements similar to the PE control. Thus, VPS impression materials may be excellent in terms of spreading and copying wet surfaces.</p>","PeriodicalId":50005,"journal":{"name":"Journal of the Canadian Dental Association","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.2000,"publicationDate":"2018-05-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Comparison of the contact angle of water on set elastomeric impression materials.\",\"authors\":\"Usama Nassar,&nbsp;Faraz Tavoossi,&nbsp;Yan Wen Pan,&nbsp;Nathan Milavong-Viravongsa,&nbsp;Giseon Heo,&nbsp;John A Nychka\",\"doi\":\"\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Purpose: </strong>The hydrophilicity of some elastomeric impression materials has not been fully established. The purpose of this study was to measure and compare the advancing contact angle of water on the surface of several set elastomeric impression materials.</p><p><strong>Materials and methods: </strong>We tested various consistencies of vinyl polysiloxane (VPS; Imprint 4) and vinyl polyether silicone (VPES; EXA'lence) with a polyether (PE; Impregum Soft) control. Impression discs (25.07 mm) were made using a metal die and ring. Deionized ultra-filtered water was placed on each disc and contact-angle measurements were made at 0, 15, 30, 45 and 60 s using a video contact angle drop shape analysis machine. The data were analyzed using repeated ANOVA and a post-hoc test with Bonferroni correction.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>VPS contact angles reached a mean of 10.1° ± 0.2° at 60 s vs. 40.7° ± 0.1° for VPES. Overall, VPS contact angles were smaller than those for VPES at all measured times. However, heavy and super quick heavy VPS had much higher contact angles at 0 s compared with other VPS consistencies. There was a significant difference in contact angles between VPS and VPES (mean difference 33.9°, p < 0.05) and between VPS and PE (mean difference 32.8°, p < 0.05) but not between VPES and PE (P = 0.196). VPS heavy and super quick heavy were significantly different from other VPS materials (p < 0.05), but not from each other (p = 1.00).</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Set VPS is more hydrophilic than VPES. Contact-angle values of VPS indicated super hydrophilicity. VPES was hydrophilic, with measurements similar to the PE control. Thus, VPS impression materials may be excellent in terms of spreading and copying wet surfaces.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":50005,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of the Canadian Dental Association\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.2000,\"publicationDate\":\"2018-05-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of the Canadian Dental Association\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"DENTISTRY, ORAL SURGERY & MEDICINE\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of the Canadian Dental Association","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"DENTISTRY, ORAL SURGERY & MEDICINE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

目的:一些弹性体印模材料的亲水性尚未完全确定。本研究的目的是测量和比较几种固定的弹性体印模材料表面的水的推进接触角。材料和方法:我们测试了不同浓度的乙烯基聚硅氧烷(VPS;压印4)和乙烯基聚醚有机硅(VPES;EXA'lence)与聚醚(PE;软)控制。压印盘(25.07毫米)是用金属模具和环制成的。在每个圆盘上放置去离子水,在0、15、30、45和60 s使用视频接触角液滴形状分析机进行接触角测量。使用重复方差分析和Bonferroni校正的事后检验对数据进行分析。结果:VPS 60 s接触角平均值为10.1°±0.2°,VPES为40.7°±0.1°。总体而言,在所有测量时间,VPS的接触角都小于VPES。而重VPS和超快重VPS在0 s时的接触角比其他VPS一致性高得多。VPS与VPES的接触角差异有统计学意义(平均差33.9°,p < 0.05), VPS与PE的接触角差异有统计学意义(平均差32.8°,p < 0.05),但VPES与PE的接触角差异无统计学意义(p = 0.196)。VPS重料和超快重料与其他VPS材料差异显著(p < 0.05),但彼此间差异不显著(p = 1.00)。结论:Set VPS的亲水性优于VPES。VPS的接触角值显示出超亲水性。VPES具有亲水性,其测量结果与PE对照组相似。因此,VPS压印材料在湿表面的扩散和复制方面可能是优秀的。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Comparison of the contact angle of water on set elastomeric impression materials.

Purpose: The hydrophilicity of some elastomeric impression materials has not been fully established. The purpose of this study was to measure and compare the advancing contact angle of water on the surface of several set elastomeric impression materials.

Materials and methods: We tested various consistencies of vinyl polysiloxane (VPS; Imprint 4) and vinyl polyether silicone (VPES; EXA'lence) with a polyether (PE; Impregum Soft) control. Impression discs (25.07 mm) were made using a metal die and ring. Deionized ultra-filtered water was placed on each disc and contact-angle measurements were made at 0, 15, 30, 45 and 60 s using a video contact angle drop shape analysis machine. The data were analyzed using repeated ANOVA and a post-hoc test with Bonferroni correction.

Results: VPS contact angles reached a mean of 10.1° ± 0.2° at 60 s vs. 40.7° ± 0.1° for VPES. Overall, VPS contact angles were smaller than those for VPES at all measured times. However, heavy and super quick heavy VPS had much higher contact angles at 0 s compared with other VPS consistencies. There was a significant difference in contact angles between VPS and VPES (mean difference 33.9°, p < 0.05) and between VPS and PE (mean difference 32.8°, p < 0.05) but not between VPES and PE (P = 0.196). VPS heavy and super quick heavy were significantly different from other VPS materials (p < 0.05), but not from each other (p = 1.00).

Conclusions: Set VPS is more hydrophilic than VPES. Contact-angle values of VPS indicated super hydrophilicity. VPES was hydrophilic, with measurements similar to the PE control. Thus, VPS impression materials may be excellent in terms of spreading and copying wet surfaces.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Journal of the Canadian Dental Association
Journal of the Canadian Dental Association 医学-牙科与口腔外科
CiteScore
1.40
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
审稿时长
>12 weeks
期刊介绍: JCDA.ca (Journal of the Canadian Dental Association) is the flagship scholarly, peer-reviewed publication of CDA, providing dialogue between the national association and the dental community. It is dedicated to publishing worthy scientific and clinical articles and informing dentists of issues significant to the profession. CDA has focused its recent efforts on knowledge, advocacy and practice support initiatives and JCDA.ca is an essential part of CDA''s knowledge strategy.
期刊最新文献
Osteomyelitis of the Jaw: A 10-Year Retrospective Analysis at a Tertiary Health Care Centre in Canada. Infective Endocarditis: Etiology, Epidemiology and Current Recommendations for the Dental Practitioner. Long-Term Trends in Access to Dental Care in Canada. Persistent Toothache Despite Multiple Dental-related Treatments: How Could this Be? Impact of Delayed Dental Treatment during the COVID-19 Pandemic in an Undergraduate Dental Clinic in Southwestern Ontario, Canada - A Retrospective Chart Review.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1