Investigation of various properties of resin infused ceramics

Abstract

PLEASE NOTE: This work is protected by copyright. Downloading is restricted to the BU community: please click Download and log in with a valid BU account to access. If you are the author of this work and would like to make it publicly available, please contact [email protected] (DScD) --Boston University, Henry M. Goldman School of Dental Medicine, 2011 (Department of Restorative Sciences and Biomaterials)Includes bibliographic references: leaves 211-216.Statement of the problem: Denture teeth are made either of methacrylate-based resins or ceramics. Either material has some advantages and some disadvantages. Resin Infused Ceramic (RTC) material may have the characteristics that makes it a possible material of choice as denture teeth material. Objectives: Evaluate RIC’s bond strengths to resin, coIor stabilities after coffee exposure, wear resistance against Mark II, microhardness, compressive strengths, and compare them to other dental materials. Materials and methods Wear: IPN, Physiodens, DCL, MZ 1OO, and Mark II, RIC 940, and RIC 960 opposed by Mark II were tested. 100,000 wear cycles against Mark II were performed and volume loss was calculated. Shear Bond: IPN, Physiodens, and DCL were bonded to Lucitone. RIC 940, RIC 960, Mark II, and Triluxe were subjected to different surface treatments prior to bonding to resin. Lucitone was bonded to resin. Color Differences: Color stability of IPN Physiodens, DCL, Mark II, RIC 940, and RIC 960 in coffee solution was tested. 10 specimens from each material were prepared. [Delta]E values after 4 weeks and 8 weeks of coffee exposure cycles were calculated. Compressive Strength: Compressive strengths of IPN, Physiodens, DCL, MZ 1OO, Mark II, Lucitone, RIC 940, and RIC 960 were tested. Microhardness: Microhardness of IPN, Physiodens, DCL, MZ 1OO, Mark II, RIC 940, and RIC 960 were tested. [TRUNCATED