기관회원 [로그인]
소속기관에서 받은 아이디, 비밀번호를 입력해 주세요.
개인회원 [로그인]

비회원 구매시 입력하신 핸드폰번호를 입력해 주세요.
본인 인증 후 구매내역을 확인하실 수 있습니다.

회원가입
서지반출
연마방법에 따른 Cerec block의 표면 거칠기 비교
[STEP1]서지반출 형식 선택
파일형식
@
서지도구
SNS
기타
[STEP2]서지반출 정보 선택
  • 제목
  • URL
돌아가기
확인
취소
  • 연마방법에 따른 Cerec block의 표면 거칠기 비교
저자명
김성광,방몽숙,Kim. Sung-Gwang,Vang. Mong-Sook
간행물명
대한치과보철학회지
권/호정보
1997년|35권 1호|pp.31-42 (12 pages)
발행정보
대한치과보철학회
파일정보
정기간행물|
PDF텍스트
주제분야
기타
이 논문은 한국과학기술정보연구원과 논문 연계를 통해 무료로 제공되는 원문입니다.
서지반출

기타언어초록

This study was performed to investigate the surface roughness of the Cerec Vita Mark II polished by various polishing techniques, compare with that of the Vintage enamel porcelain glazed by high temperature glazing technique. All of the Cerec specimen were finished with sequential use of high speed diamond burs(grit 45, 30 and $15{mu}m$). The groups were divided into 5 groups : Group I : Cerec Vita Mark II block specimens polished with Sof-lex discs. Group II : Cerce Vita Mark II block specimens polished with Two Striper MPS. Group III : Cerce Vita Mark II block specimens polished with Enhance. Group IV : Cerce Vita Mark II block specimens polished with Porcelain laminate polishing FG kit. Group V : Vintage enamel porcelain glazed by high temperature glazing Technique. Each group was consisted of 10 specimens. The surfaces produced were examined quantitatively using a laser specular reflectance machine(Perthen RM600-s, Feinpruf Perthen GmbH., Germany) and qualitatively under SEM(JSM-5400, JEOL, Japan). The Results were as follows : 1. The arithmetic mean roughness value(Ra) in groups 1, 2, 3 and 4 was higher than that of group5. There was statistically significant difference(P<0.05). 2. The arithmetic mean roughness value(Ra) decreased in the following orders : group 1, group 2, group 4, group 3 and there was no statistically significant difference between group 1 and group 2, group 3, and group 4. There was statistically significant difference among group 1, 2, and group 3, 4 and group 5(P<0.05). 3. The maximum individual peak-to-valley-height(Rmax) decreased in the following orders : group 2, group 1, group 4, group 3, group 5 and there was no statistically significant difference between group 1 and 2, group 1 and group 4, group 3 and group 5. There was statistically significant difference among group 1, 2, and group 1, 4 and group 3, 5(P<0.05). 4. The treated surfaces of group 5 had smoother surface than that of groups 1, 2, 3, 4 with SEM.