不同表面处理全解剖式氧化锆全瓷冠磨耗性能的对比研究
|
摘要
目的:评价抛光、上釉、喷砂3种不同表面处理方法对全解剖式氧化锆全瓷冠磨耗性能的影响。方法:使用CAD/CAM系统制作15个全解剖式氧化锆全瓷冠,按抛光、上釉、喷砂不同表面处理方式平均分为3组,在人工唾液环境中与天然牙对磨,实验频率为0. 2 Hz,加载力10 N,实验时长为1 h。对比分析每个样本磨耗实验后的体量损失、动态摩擦系数平均值及观察动态摩擦系数变化。结果:三组不同表面处理全解剖式氧化锆全瓷冠磨耗实验后损失质量之间差异有统计学意义(P <0. 05)。三组副配天然牙磨耗实验后损失质量间差异无统计学意义(P>0. 05),抛光组与上釉组、喷砂组摩擦系数间差异均有统计学意义(P <0. 05),上釉组与喷砂组摩擦系数间差异则无统计学意义(P> 0. 05)。结论:表面抛光处理比上釉和喷砂处理更利于防止全解剖式氧化锆全瓷冠自身及对颌天然牙的过度磨耗,表面上釉可造成全锆修复体自身及对颌天然牙的过度磨耗,表面喷砂可造成对颌天然牙的过度磨耗。推荐抛光作为全解剖式氧化锆全瓷冠表面处理方式。
Objective: To study the effects of polishing,glazing and sandblasting the three different surface treatment on the wear ability of the zirconia all-ceramic crowns. Methods: According to different surface treatments,15 CAD/CAM zirconia all-ceramic crowns were randomly divided into three groups,that were polishing group,glazing group and sandblasting group. Each group crowns were grinded with natural teeth in the artificial saliva environment. The experimental frequency was0. 2 Hz and the loading force was 10 N,and testing time was 1 hour. The quality of each sample was compared and analyzed before and after the experiment. The dynamic friction coefficients of each sample were recorded. Results: There was significant difference between the quality loss of three groups of zirconia all-ceramic crowns( P < 0. 05). There was no significant difference between the quality loss of three groups of paired teeth( P > 0. 05). There was significant difference between the dynamic friction coefficients of polishing group and glazing group,sandblasting group( P < 0. 05),no significant difference between glazing and sandblasting group( P > 0. 05). Conclusion: Surface-polishing treatment is more conducive to prevent the zirconia all-ceramic crown itself and the excessive wear of jaw natural teeth than glazing and sandblasting. Glazing can cause excessive wear of the zirconia all-ceramic crown itself and the jaw natural teeth. Sandblasting can cause excessive wear of the jaw natural teeth. Among three kinds of surface treatment,polishing is the recommended surface treatment for zirconia all-ceramic crowns.
Objective: To study the effects of polishing,glazing and sandblasting the three different surface treatment on the wear ability of the zirconia all-ceramic crowns. Methods: According to different surface treatments,15 CAD/CAM zirconia all-ceramic crowns were randomly divided into three groups,that were polishing group,glazing group and sandblasting group. Each group crowns were grinded with natural teeth in the artificial saliva environment. The experimental frequency was0. 2 Hz and the loading force was 10 N,and testing time was 1 hour. The quality of each sample was compared and analyzed before and after the experiment. The dynamic friction coefficients of each sample were recorded. Results: There was significant difference between the quality loss of three groups of zirconia all-ceramic crowns( P < 0. 05). There was no significant difference between the quality loss of three groups of paired teeth( P > 0. 05). There was significant difference between the dynamic friction coefficients of polishing group and glazing group,sandblasting group( P < 0. 05),no significant difference between glazing and sandblasting group( P > 0. 05). Conclusion: Surface-polishing treatment is more conducive to prevent the zirconia all-ceramic crown itself and the excessive wear of jaw natural teeth than glazing and sandblasting. Glazing can cause excessive wear of the zirconia all-ceramic crown itself and the jaw natural teeth. Sandblasting can cause excessive wear of the jaw natural teeth. Among three kinds of surface treatment,polishing is the recommended surface treatment for zirconia all-ceramic crowns.
引文
[1]Conrad HJ,Seong WJ,Pesun IJ.Current ceramic materials and systems with clinical recommendations:a systematic review[J].J Prosthet Dent,2007,98(5):389-404.
[2]蒋元源,凌翔,李倩,等.CAD/CAM氧化锆全瓷冠修复临床疗效评价[J].临床口腔医学杂志,2012,28(11):685-686.
[3]Hudson JD,Georgescu M.Enamel wear caused by three different restorative materials[J].J Prosthet Dent,1995,72(5):647-654.
[4]Heintze SD,Cavalleri A,Forjanic M,et al.Wear of ceramic and antagonist-a systematic evaluation of influencing factors in vitro[J].Dent Mater,2008,24(4):433-449.
[5]T.KosmaˇC,C.Oblak,P.Jevnikar.The effect of surface grinding and sandblasting on flexural strength and reliability of Y-TZP zirconia ceramic[J].Dent Mater,1999,15(6):426-433.
[6]M Guazzato,L Quach,M Albakry,et al.Influence of surface and heat treatments on the flexural strength of Y-TZP dental ceramic[J].Dent Mater,2005,33(1):9-18.
[7]Guazzato M,Albakry M,Quach L,et al.Influence of grinding,sandblasting,polishing and heat treatment on the flexural strength of a glassinfiltrated alumina-reinforced dental ceramic[J].Biomaterials,2004,25(11):2153-2160.
[8]张凯,吴凤鸣,光寒冰.抛光对2种全瓷材料表面粗糙度及磨耗性能的影响[J].口腔医学,2014,34(1):39-42.
[9]孙硕,梁锐英,任婧,等.抛光和上釉对氧化锆修复体与牙釉质磨损性能的影响[J].中华口腔医学杂志,2016,51(5):300-304.
[2]蒋元源,凌翔,李倩,等.CAD/CAM氧化锆全瓷冠修复临床疗效评价[J].临床口腔医学杂志,2012,28(11):685-686.
[3]Hudson JD,Georgescu M.Enamel wear caused by three different restorative materials[J].J Prosthet Dent,1995,72(5):647-654.
[4]Heintze SD,Cavalleri A,Forjanic M,et al.Wear of ceramic and antagonist-a systematic evaluation of influencing factors in vitro[J].Dent Mater,2008,24(4):433-449.
[5]T.KosmaˇC,C.Oblak,P.Jevnikar.The effect of surface grinding and sandblasting on flexural strength and reliability of Y-TZP zirconia ceramic[J].Dent Mater,1999,15(6):426-433.
[6]M Guazzato,L Quach,M Albakry,et al.Influence of surface and heat treatments on the flexural strength of Y-TZP dental ceramic[J].Dent Mater,2005,33(1):9-18.
[7]Guazzato M,Albakry M,Quach L,et al.Influence of grinding,sandblasting,polishing and heat treatment on the flexural strength of a glassinfiltrated alumina-reinforced dental ceramic[J].Biomaterials,2004,25(11):2153-2160.
[8]张凯,吴凤鸣,光寒冰.抛光对2种全瓷材料表面粗糙度及磨耗性能的影响[J].口腔医学,2014,34(1):39-42.
[9]孙硕,梁锐英,任婧,等.抛光和上釉对氧化锆修复体与牙釉质磨损性能的影响[J].中华口腔医学杂志,2016,51(5):300-304.