摘要
目的:研究钴铬合金、高钴铬钼合金(Vitallium 2000合金)和纯钛三种支架材料调磨后不同的抛光方法对其粗糙度的影响,为临床选择合适的抛光方法提供参考。方法:将三种金属铸件常规抛光,每种金属均匀调磨后按不同处理方式随机分成四组,用粗糙度测试仪测量各组的粗糙度值并进行统计学分析,电子显微镜观察铸件表面形貌。结果:相同的材料,随着抛光程序的增加,其表面粗糙度值除钴铬合金和Vitallium 2000中使用抛光机布轮加抛光液组和使用绒轮加抛光膏组结果差异无统计学意义(P>0.05)外,其它组均明显下降,差异有统计学意义(P<0.05);相同的抛光方法,纯钛组所测得的粗糙度值比钴铬,Vitallium 2000合金组大,差异有统计学意义(P<0.05)。钴铬和Vitallium 2000组每组间两两比较差异无统计学意义(P>0.05)。显微镜下观察其表面形貌与上述粗糙度值相一致。结论:临床钴铬合金和Vitallium 2000合金金属支架在试戴调磨后可使用金刚砂橡皮轮+绒轮蘸抛光膏抛光即可达到良好的抛光效果,而纯钛需在上述抛光基础上继续增加抛光机布轮抛光液抛光;使用相同的抛光方法,纯钛的抛光效果比其它两种材料稍差,提示了临床上针对纯钛铸件的抛光应仔细、认真。
Objective: To compare the effect of different polishing methods on the three dental prosthetic metals rough surface, to provide appropriate polishing method for doctors. Methods: The three kinds of metal castings were divided into four groups after conventional polishing according to different polishing methods. Roughness of metal samples were measured and the data were analyzed. The surface microstructures were observed by scanning electron microscope(SEM). Results: As the degree of polishing methods increased, the surface roughness of the same meials decreased apparently, except method C and method D in Co-Cr group and Vitallium2000 group. The surface roughness of Co-Cr group and Vitalli- um2000 group was lower than titanium group with same polishing methods, and the difference was statistically significant (P〈0.05). Co-Cr group and Vitallium2000 group had no significant difference (P〉0.05). The surface microstructure ob- served by scanning electron microscope was consistent with the surface roughness. Conclusion: Co-Cr alloy and Vitalli- um2000 alloy after grinding used method C can achieve good polishing effect, while the pure titanium need to use method D. Using the same method of polishing, polishing of pure titanium effect is worse than other kinds of material, suggesting doctors should be more carefully and seriously for polishing of pure titanium.
出处
《口腔颌面修复学杂志》
2013年第3期143-146,共4页
Chinese Journal of Prosthodontics
关键词
支架材料
抛光
粗糙度
support material
polishing
surface roughness