论文部分内容阅读
目的对比3种自制桩核树脂与3种双固化进口桩核树脂的机械性能。方法将纳米SiO2与玻璃粉作为填料,以3种比例分散于不同基质中,组1:SiO2填料直径为50nm,基质添加BisEMA6;组2:SiO2填料直径为12nm和50nm,基质添加BisEMA6;组3:SiO2填料直径为12nm和50nm,基质添加BisEMA。测定比较3组自制桩核树脂和3种双固化进口桩核树脂的挠曲强度、抗压强度、断裂面微观结构。结果自制组2、3的挠曲强度与3组双固化进口树脂无显著差异(P>0.05),抗压强度高于后者(P<0.05),断裂面微观结构与后者相似;自制组1挠曲强度、抗压强度较自制组2、3低(P<0.05),断裂面微观结构不同。结论添加BisEMA、BisEMA6的基质分别与含有12nm SiO2的填料自行配制的纳米桩核树脂,挠曲强度达到进口树脂水平,抗压强度高于进口树脂水平。
Objective To compare the mechanical properties of three kinds of self-made post core resin and three kinds of double-cured post core resin. Methods Nanometer SiO2 and glass powder were used as filler to disperse in three kinds of matrices in different proportions: group 1: SiO2 filler with diameter of 50nm and matrix with BisEMA6; group 2 with SiO2 filler with diameter of 12nm and 50nm; matrix with BisEMA6; group 3 : SiO2 fillers are 12 nm and 50 nm in diameter with BisEMA added to the substrate. The flexural strength, compressive strength and fracture surface microstructure of three kinds of self-made post-core resin and three kinds of dual-core post-core resin were compared. Results The flexural strength of the self-made groups 2 and 3 was not significantly different from that of the 3 groups of double-cured resin (P> 0.05), and the compressive strength was higher than that of the latter (P <0.05) 1 flexural strength and compressive strength than the self-made group 2,3 low (P <0.05), fracture surface microstructure is different. Conclusion The addition of BisEMA, BisEMA6 matrix and 12nm SiO2 filler self-prepared nano-post-core resin flexural strength reached the level of imported resin, compressive strength higher than the level of imported resin.