Abstract
Statement of Problem. Limited abrasion resistance is one of the disadvantages of gypsum materials. One means to improve these properties may be the addition of various polymers to reinforce surface and subsurface wear resistance. Purpose. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the abrasion resistance of 3 types of gypsum materials with a novel abrasion wear device. Material and Methods. A standard test specimen (50 × 50 × 8 mm) with repeating 1 mm, 45°-angle vertical ridges was used as the test surface. Three types of gypsum materials were evaluated: a type III stone, a conventional type IV stone, and a resin-impregnated type IV stone. Specimens of each material (n = 30) were poured in a vinyl polysiloxane impression of the standard test specimen with the use of an acrylic resin custom tray. Each gypsum product was mixed according to the manufacturer's instructions, poured, and separated 1 hour later. Specimens were trimmed and allowed to bench set for 24 hours (n = 15) or 7 days (n = 15). Abrasion was evaluated with the use of a reciprocal moving stage positioned below a weighted stylus. The stylus was loaded with 3 different weights (15, 50, and 75 g), and the individual gypsum specimens were moved reciprocally for 10 passes. Before and after each set of passes, the specimen was measured on an analytical balance to determine material loss. Three-way ANOVA and Scheffe's multiple comparisons test were used to analyze the data (P<.05). Results. Type III gypsum at 24 hours exhibited significantly greater material loss than type IV stones at both 7 days and 24 hours (P<.001). Type III gypsum specimens exhibited significantly greater material loss at 24 hours than at 7 days (P<.001). There was no significant difference in the abrasion resistance of type IV specimens at 24 hours and 7 days. Conclusion. Within the limitations of this study, no significant differences in abrasion resistance were found between specimens fabricated with resin-impregnated and conventional type IV stones, although the former exhibited the least material loss. (J Prosthet Dent 2002;87:319-22.)
Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
