4 resultados para Glass and other amorphous materials
em BORIS: Bern Open Repository and Information System - Berna - Suiça
Resumo:
Summary The first part of this review examined ISO approval requirements and in vitro testing. In the second part, non-standardized test methods for composite materials are presented and discussed. Physical tests are primarily described. Analyses of surface gloss and alterations, as well as aging simulations of dental materials are presented. Again, the importance of laboratory tests in determining clinical outcomes is evaluated. Differences in the measurement protocols of the various testing institutes and how these differences can in?uence the results are also discussed. Because there is no standardization of test protocols, the values determined by different institutes cannot be directly compared. However, the ranking of the tested materials should be the same if a valid protocol is applied by different institutes. The modulus of elasticity, the expansion after water sorption, and the polishability of the material are all clinically relevant, whereas factors measured by other test protocols may have no clinical correlation. The handling properties of the materials are highly dependent on operators' preferences. Therefore, no standard values can be given.
Resumo:
The first part of this three-part review on the relevance of laboratory testing of composites and adhesives deals with approval requirements for composite materials. We compare the in vivo and in vitro literature data and discuss the relevance of in vitro analyses. The standardized ISO protocols are presented, with a focus on the evaluation of physical parameters. These tests all have a standardized protocol that describes the entire test set-up. The tests analyse flexural strength, depth of cure, susceptibility to ambient light, color stability, water sorption and solubility, and radiopacity. Some tests have a clinical correlation. A high flexural strength, for instance, decreases the risk of fractures of the marginal ridge in posterior restorations and incisal edge build-ups of restored anterior teeth. Other tests do not have a clinical correlation or the threshold values are too low, which results in an approval of materials that show inferior clinical properties (e.g., radiopacity). It is advantageous to know the test set-ups and the ideal threshold values to correctly interpret the material data. Overall, however, laboratory assessment alone cannot ensure the clinical success of a product.