口腔医学研究

口腔医学研究 ›› 2018, Vol. 34 ›› Issue (11): 1240-1243.DOI: 10.13701/j.cnki.kqyxyj.2018.11.022

• 口腔修复学研究 • 上一篇    下一篇

不同抛光工具对氧化锆抛光效果的比较研究

张晓1*, 姬洋1, 刘宝盈2, 邓青完1, 张杉1, 陈文博1   

  1. 1. 郑州大学第一附属医院口腔修复科 河南 郑州 450052;
    2. 郑州大学第一附属医院 口腔医学院 河南 郑州 450052
  • 收稿日期:2018-04-07 出版日期:2018-11-28 发布日期:2018-11-23
  • 通讯作者: 张晓,E-mail:zhangxiaoxiao67@126.com
  • 作者简介:张晓(1976~ ),女,河南人,硕士,副教授,主要从事口腔修复方面的研究。
  • 基金资助:
    河南省科技厅项目(豫科【2016】19号)(编号:162102310533)

Comparative Study on Polishing Effect of Zirconia by Different Polishing Tools

ZHANG Xiao1*,JI Yang1,LIU Bao-ying2,DENG Qing-wan1,ZHANG Shan1,CHEN Wen-bo1   

  1. 1. Department of Prosthodontics, The First Affiliated Hospital of Zhengzhou University, Zhengzhou 450052, China;
    2. School of Stomatology, The First Affiliated Hospital of Zhengzhou University, Zhengzhou 450052, China.
  • Received:2018-04-07 Online:2018-11-28 Published:2018-11-23

PDF (PC)

420

摘要： 目的:研究不同抛光工具对氧化锆抛光后表面性能的影响。方法:制作氧化锆标准试件(13 mm×10 mm×3 mm),随机选取40个分成5组(n=8):A组(空白对照组)、B组(阴性对照组)、C组(松风组)、D组(固美组)、E组(EVE组)。测试各组试件每级处理后的Ra值及每组试件的维氏硬度值,扫描电镜下观察每组试件处理后的表面形态。结果:氧化锆试件经表面处理后各组Ra值之间不完全相同,差异有统计学意义(F=273.200,P=0.000);各组Ra值从低到高依次为:E<A、B、D<C,差异有统计学意义;B、C、D、E四组前后两级抛光后的Ra值有统计学差异。SEM结果与表面粗糙度测试结果具有较好的一致性。各组氧化锆试件在表面处理后维氏硬度值总体相同,差异无统计学意义(F=2.603,P=0.053)。结论:不同抛光工具对氧化锆抛光后的效果有明显差异,EVE氧化锆抛光套装抛光效果最好,固美氧化锆抛光套装与松风白色砂石其次;松风氧化锆抛光套装效果较差。

关键词: 氧化锆, 抛光, 表面粗糙度, SEM, 维氏硬度

Abstract: Objective: To compare the effect of different polishing tools on the surface properties of zirconia after polishing. Methods: 40 zirconia blocks specimens (13 mm×10 mm×3 mm) were randomly divided into 5 groups (n=8): Group A (blank control group), group B (negative control group), group C (SHOFU), group D (KOMET), and group E (EVE). The effect of polishing was measured by the Ra value, the vickers hardness, and the surface morphology. Results: The Ra values of zirconia specimens were not exactly the same, and the differences were statistically significant(F=273.200,P=0.000). The mean Ra values of each group were as follows: E<A, B, D<C, and the differences were statistically significant. The results of SEM were consistent with the surface roughness. The hardness values of zirconia specimens were the same after surface treatment, and the difference was not statistically significant (F=2.603,P=0.053). Conclusion: The effects of different polishing tools on zirconia were significant. EVE zirconia polishing tool achieved the best performance, which was comparable to the surface properties of zirconia after sintering. The effect of SHOFU zirconia polishing tool was poor, which was worse than that of white sand and sintering.

Key words: Zirconia, Polishing, Surface roughness, SEM, Vickers hardness