Cited 25 times in

Hardness of celluloid strip-finished or polished composite surfaces with time.

DC Field Value Language
dc.contributor.author박성호-
dc.date.accessioned2019-11-11T05:25:43Z-
dc.date.available2019-11-11T05:25:43Z-
dc.date.issued2000-
dc.identifier.issn0022-3913-
dc.identifier.urihttps://ir.ymlib.yonsei.ac.kr/handle/22282913/171868-
dc.description.abstractSTATEMENT OF PROBLEM: An in-vitro study revealed that a celluloid strip-finished composite surface discolored more than the polished composite surface. Thus, the celluloid strip-finished composite surface may not cure enough compared with the polished composite surface. PURPOSE: This study tested the hypothesis that the celluloid strip-finished composite surface did not cure enough compared with the polished composite surface. METHODS AND MATERIAL: The composite was placed in a 1.5-mm thick aluminum mold and the upper surface was covered with a celluloid strip. Composite was light cured for 60 seconds, then a layer of approximately 200 microm thick was ground away from the lower surface and polished. The hardness of the upper composite surface that was polymerized under a celluloid strip and the polished lower surface were measured with Vickers hardness measuring instrument 15 minutes, 6 hours, and 6 days after light curing. The hardnesses of polished and celluloid strip-finished surfaces were compared using a paired t test. One-way ANOVA and Tukey was used for tests for the significant differences in hardnesses between 15 minutes, 6 hours, and 6 days after light curing for a given surface. RESULTS: Microhardness of the celluloid strip-finished composite surface was 380.6 N/mm(2) at 15 minutes, 442.5 N/mm(2) at 6 hours, and 519.2 N/mm(2) at 6 days after light curing. Microhardnesses of the polished composite surface was 476.6 N/mm(2) at 15 minutes, 511.7 N/mm(2) at 6 hours, and 535.0 N/mm(2) at 6 days after light curing. The hardness of the celluloid strip-opposed composite surface was significantly lower than that of the polished surface 15 minutes and 6 hours after light curing (P <. 001). There was no difference in hardness between the celluloid strip-opposed surface and the polished surface on the sixth day. CONCLUSION: The hardness of the celluloid strip-opposed composite surface was lower than that of the polished surface at 15 minutes and at 6 hours after light curing. However, there was no difference in microhardness in 6 days.-
dc.description.statementOfResponsibilityrestriction-
dc.languageEnglish-
dc.publisherMosby-Year Book-
dc.relation.isPartOfJournal of Prosthetic Dentistry-
dc.rightsCC BY-NC-ND 2.0 KR-
dc.subject.MESHAnalysis of Variance-
dc.subject.MESHComposite Resins*-
dc.subject.MESHDental Polishing/instrumentation-
dc.subject.MESHDental Polishing/methods*-
dc.subject.MESHDental Polishing/statistics & numerical data-
dc.subject.MESHHardness-
dc.subject.MESHHardness Tests/methods-
dc.subject.MESHLight-
dc.subject.MESHSurface Properties-
dc.subject.MESHTime Factors-
dc.titleHardness of celluloid strip-finished or polished composite surfaces with time.-
dc.typeArticle-
dc.contributor.collegeCollege of Dentistry (치과대학)-
dc.contributor.departmentDept. of Conservative Dentistry (보존과학교실)-
dc.contributor.googleauthorSung-Ho Park-
dc.contributor.googleauthorIvo Krejci-
dc.contributor.googleauthorFelix Lutz-
dc.identifier.doi10.1016/S0022-3913(00)70067-9-
dc.contributor.localIdA01514-
dc.relation.journalcodeJ01718-
dc.identifier.eissn1097-6841-
dc.identifier.pmid10842135-
dc.identifier.urlhttps://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0022391300700679-
dc.contributor.alternativeNamePark, Sung Ho-
dc.contributor.affiliatedAuthor박성호-
dc.citation.volume83-
dc.citation.number6-
dc.citation.startPage660-
dc.citation.endPage663-
dc.identifier.bibliographicCitationJournal of Prosthetic Dentistry, Vol.83(6) : 660-663, 2000-
Appears in Collections:
2. College of Dentistry (치과대학) > Dept. of Conservative Dentistry (보존과학교실) > 1. Journal Papers

qrcode

Items in DSpace are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.