论文部分内容阅读
目的:比较POSS复合树脂和三种临床常用复合树脂/聚合体弯曲强度和抗压强度,为POSS复合树脂的临床应用提供参考依据。方法:采用Zwick电子万能试验机分别测试试样的弯曲强度和抗压强度,以l.0mm/min的加载速度垂直加压直至试样破坏,记录破坏时的载荷,测试结果用SPSS16.0软件进行多样本均数方差分析(F检验)和SNK-q检验。结果:弯曲强度测试结果:FiltekTM Z250组最高,与其他三组间均有统计学差异;BeautifilII组好于POSS组和SureFil组(P<0.05);POSS组与SureFil组间无显著性差异(P>0.05)。抗压强度测试结果:FiltekTM Z250组最高,与其他三组间均有统计学差异;SureFil组好于POSS组和BeautifilII组(P<0.05);POSS组和BeautifilII组间无显著性差异(P>0.05)。结论:POSS复合树脂的弯曲强度和抗压强度可以满足临床应用需要。
Objective: To compare the flexural strength and compressive strength of POSS composite resin and three commonly used composite resin / polymer, to provide a reference for the clinical application of POSS composite resin. Methods: The flexural strength and compressive strength of specimens were tested by Zwick electronic universal testing machine. The specimens were vertically pressed at the loading speed of 1.0 mm / min until the specimens were destroyed. The load at failure was recorded. The test results were analyzed by SPSS16.0 software Multiple-sample analysis of variance (F test) and SNK-q test were performed. Results: The results of flexural strength test showed that FiltekTM Z250 group was the highest, which was significantly different from the other three groups; BeautifilII group was better than POSS group and SureFil group (P <0.05); there was no significant difference between POSS group and SureFil group > 0.05). Compressive strength test results: FiltekTM Z250 group was the highest, with the other three groups were statistically significant; SureFil group was better than POSS group and BeautifilII group (P <0.05); POSS group and BeautifilII group no significant difference (P> 0.05). Conclusion: The bending strength and compressive strength of POSS composite resin can meet the needs of clinical application.