检索规则说明:AND代表“并且”;OR代表“或者”;NOT代表“不包含”;(注意必须大写,运算符两边需空一格)
检 索 范 例 :范例一: (K=图书馆学 OR K=情报学) AND A=范并思 范例二:J=计算机应用与软件 AND (U=C++ OR U=Basic) NOT M=Visual
出 处:《现代口腔医学杂志》2004年第3期248-250,共3页Journal of Modern Stomatology
摘 要:目的 评价各种光敏复合树脂间遮色性能的差异 ,并与天然牙本质、牙釉质进行比较。方法 对 9种常用光敏复合树脂及牙釉质、牙本质圆形试件进行测色 ,用XYZ色度系统分别记录黑、白背景下的Y值 ,按公式O =Y黑/Y白 × 10 0 %计算遮色力。结果 天然牙本质遮色力范围 39.88%~ 86 .12 % ,天然牙釉质的遮色力范围36 .2 0 %~ 6 0 .6 9% ,各类树脂遮色力范围 :Z10 0树脂 4 2 .5 8%~ 5 4 .6 5 % ,Charisma树脂 39.80 %~ 6 2 .92 % ,TPH树脂 5 1.80 %~ 6 0 .38% ,Litefil树脂 4 7.75 %~ 5 2 .2 0 % ,Progress树脂4 7.2 7%~ 6 3.93% ,GC树脂 4 9.4 7%~ 5 7.89% ,Palique树脂 4 4 .2 7%~ 5 8.87% ,Clearfil树脂 4 6 .95 %~ 5 4 .89% ,Helimalar树脂 5 5 .6 4 %~ 6 7.4 2 %。结论 天然牙硬组织样本遮色力分布范围远大于复合树脂 ;各种光敏复合树脂遮色力分布范围不同 ;在临床牙体缺损树脂修复过程中 ,进行色度选择的同时 ,应当考虑树脂的遮色性能。Objective To compare opacity of light cured composite resins with natural dentin and enamel,and to provide reference for esthetic dental restoration and dental material development.Methods Samples of 9 kinds of composite resins,natural dentin and enamel were made and measured under black and white background with colorimeter.“Y”value were used to calculate the opacity with O=Y b/Y wX100%.Results The opacity of dentin samples range from 39.88% to 86.12%,enamel sample from 36.20% to 60.69%, 42.58% to 54.65% for Z100, 39.80% to 62.92% for Charisma, 51.80% to 60.38% for TPH, 47.75% to 52.20% for Litefil, 47.27% to 63.93% for Progress, 49.47% to 57.89% for GC, 44.27% to 58.87% for Palique, 46.95% to 54.89% for Clearfil, 55.64% to 67.42% for Helimalar.Conclusion Opacity of natural teeth sample distributed wider than that of light cured composite resins.Opacity of composite resins showed differences each other.Opacity should be considered when light cured composite resins were selected to restore the natural teeth.
正在载入数据...
正在载入数据...
正在载入数据...
正在载入数据...
正在载入数据...
正在载入数据...
正在载入数据...
正在链接到云南高校图书馆文献保障联盟下载...
云南高校图书馆联盟文献共享服务平台 版权所有©
您的IP:216.73.216.33