不同抛光工具对e.max CAD玻璃陶瓷抛光效果的比较研究

发布时间：2018-05-12 07:41

本文选题：e.max + CAD玻璃陶瓷　；参考：《郑州大学》2017年硕士论文

【摘要】：目的从粗糙度、光泽度和扫描电子显微镜观察三个方面比较临床常用的几种玻璃陶瓷抛光工具对e.max CAD玻璃陶瓷的抛光效果,为临床抛光工具的选择提供依据。方法将成品e.max CAD瓷块切割制作成60个15mm×10mm×5mm大小的陶瓷试件并随机分为6组(n=10),水砂纸、金刚砂车针依次打磨后测量光泽度和粗糙度,统计分析组与组具有一致性后进行不同的表面处理。G组:釉瓷上釉;SF组:使用松风Porcelain Adjustment Kit+CeraMaster组合抛光;3M组:使用3M Sof-LexTM套装抛光;Tob组:使用道邦玻璃陶瓷套装抛光;EVE组:使用EVE DIAPRO套装抛光;Ivo组:使用义获嘉OptraFine套装抛光。测量试件抛光过程中光泽度和粗糙度值Ra、Rz并进行统计分析,通过扫描电子显微镜(SEM)观测试件并对表面形态作定性分析。结果光泽度方面:各组光泽度值统计结果为:G组(68.4GU±1.5GU)3M组(58.4GU±2GU)、Ivo组(55.7GU±3.7GU)SF组(47.5GU±3.3GU)EVE组(40.7GU±4.6GU)Tob组(32.2GU±3.5GU),其中3M组与Ivo组之间无统计学差异(P0.05),其余各组之间差异均有统计学意义(P0.05)。粗糙度方面:各组Ra值统计结果为:3M组(0.202μm±0.034μm)、G组(0.227μm±0.014μm)SF组(0.287μm±0.02μm)、Ivo组(0.32μm±0.012μm)EVE组(0.471μm±0.044μm)Tob组(0.567μm±0.028μm),其中3M组与G组、SF组与Ivo组无统计学差异(P0.05),其余各组之间差异均有统计学意义(P0.05)。Rz值统计结果与Ra值一致。SEM观察结果与粗糙度值统计结果一致。结论不同抛光工具对e.max CAD玻璃陶瓷抛光效果差异显著,3M Sof-LexTM套装抛光性能最好,取得近似釉瓷上釉的表面效果;松风套装组合抛光方法和OptraFine套装都取得了较好的抛光效果,OptraFine套装抛光后表面光泽更佳;EVE DIAPRO套装抛光效果一般;道邦玻璃陶瓷套装抛光效果较差。
[Abstract]:Objective to compare the polishing effects of several glass-ceramic polishing tools on e.max CAD glass-ceramics from the aspects of roughness, gloss and scanning electron microscope (SEM), so as to provide the basis for the selection of clinical polishing tools. Methods A total of 60 15mm 脳 10mm 脳 5mm ceramic specimens were made by cutting finished e.max CAD ceramic pieces and randomly divided into 6 groups: water sand paper and Emery wheel needle were polished in turn to measure gloss and roughness. Statistical analysis group and group of different surface treatment. G group: glaze SF group: using pine wind Porcelain Adjustment Kit CeraMaster combination polishing group 3M: 3M Sof-LexTM set polishing and Tob group: using Dobang glass ceramic set polishing Eve group: polished with EVE DIAPRO set. Ivo group: polished with OptraFine kit. The gloss and roughness values Raj Rz during polishing were measured and statistically analyzed. The samples were observed by scanning electron microscope (SEM) and the surface morphology was qualitatively analyzed. Results in the aspect of glossiness, the statistical results of the gloss value of each group were: 58.4 gu 卤2GU 卤1.5GU)3M, 55.7 gu 卤3.7GU)SF, 47.5GU 卤3.3GU)EVE, 40.7GU 卤4.6GU)Tob, there was no statistical difference between 3M group and Ivo group (P 0.05), and there was significant difference between other groups (P 0.05). Roughness: the statistical results of Ra value in each group were 0.202 渭 m 卤0.034 渭 m in G group, 0.227 渭 m 卤0.014 渭 m)SF group in 0. 287 渭 m 卤0. 02 渭 m m)SF group, 0. 471 渭 m 卤0.044 渭 m m)Tob group in 0. 471 渭 m 卤0.044 渭 m)Tob group and 0. 567 渭 m 卤0.028 渭 m in m)Tob group, among which there was no statistical difference between 3 M group and G group (P 0. 05). The result of SEM observation is consistent with the statistical result of roughness value. Conclusion the polishing effect of different polishing tools on e.max CAD glass ceramics is significantly different. The polishing performance of 3M Sof-LexTM suit is the best, and the surface effect of glazing is similar to that of glazed porcelain. The combination polishing method of pine wind suit and OptraFine suit obtained better polishing effect. After polishing, the surface gloss was better than that of Eve DIAPRO suit, but the polishing effect of Dobang glass and ceramic suit was poor.
【学位授予单位】：郑州大学
【学位级别】：硕士
【学位授予年份】：2017
【分类号】：R783.1

【参考文献】