Àá½Ã¸¸ ±â´Ù·Á ÁÖ¼¼¿ä. ·ÎµùÁßÀÔ´Ï´Ù.

Ä¡°ú¿ë ź¼º °í¹« ÀλóÀçÀÇ ¹°¸®Àû¡¤±â°èÀû Ư¼º ºñ±³

Comparison for Physical and Mechanical Properties of Dental Rubber Impression Materials

´ëÇÑÄ¡°ú±âÀçÇÐȸÁö 2013³â 40±Ç 3È£ p.161 ~ 168
ÀÓ¼ö¿¬, ±ÇÀ缺, ÀÌ»ó¹è, ±è°æ³²,
¼Ò¼Ó »ó¼¼Á¤º¸
ÀÓ¼ö¿¬ ( Im Su-Yeon ) - ¿¬¼¼´ëÇб³ Ä¡°ú´ëÇÐ Ä¡°ú»ýüÀç·á°øÇб³½Ç
±ÇÀ缺 ( Kwon Jae-Sung ) - ¿¬¼¼´ëÇб³ Ä¡°ú´ëÇÐ Ä¡°ú»ýüÀç·á°øÇб³½Ç
ÀÌ»ó¹è ( Lee Sang-Bae ) - ¿¬¼¼´ëÇб³ Ä¡°ú´ëÇÐ Ä¡°ú»ýüÀç·á°øÇб³½Ç
±è°æ³² ( Kim Kyoung-Nam ) - ¿¬¼¼´ëÇб³ Ä¡°ú´ëÇÐ Ä¡°ú»ýüÀç·á°øÇб³½Ç

Abstract


The purpose of this study was to measure and compare the important physical and mechanical properties of dental rubber impression materials. Detail eproduction test, test for compatibility with gypsum, elastic recovery test, strain-in-compression test, contact angle test and shore hardness test of the four addition silicone(Aquasil Ultra XLV, Dentsply, Germany; Delikit, Happiden, Korea; Extrude Wash, Kerr, USA; Perfect-F, Handae Chemical, Korea), a condensation silicone(Xantopren Comfort, Heraeus, Germany) and a polyether(Permadyne, 3M ESPE, Germany) were measured. Unlike the existing physical properties, there was a difference in the value of contact angle and shore hardness according to the type of materials. Therefore, these results suggested that other properties such as contact angle and shore hardness of dental rubber impression materials should be also required.

Å°¿öµå

Addition silicone; Condensation silicone; Dental rubber impression materials; Physical and Mechanical Properties; Polyether

¿ø¹® ¹× ¸µÅ©¾Æ¿ô Á¤º¸

 

µîÀçÀú³Î Á¤º¸

KCI