A comparison of the physical properties of four prosthetic veneering materials.
Four resin materials used to veneer metal castings were compared by evaluating certain physical properties. Three of the materials were microfilled resins and one was an unfilled resin. Although no material proved to be superior in all of the tests, the microfilled materials were generally better than the unfilled materials. The heat- and pressure- polymerized microfilled material was inferior to the two light-polymerized microfilled materials in three of the physical property tests, superior to them in one test, and proved to be equivalent to them in two tests.
Jones
R M
RM
Department of Prosthodontics, Indiana University, School of Dentistry, Indianapolis.
Goodacre
C J
CJ
Moore
B K
BK
Dykema
R W
RW
D000180:Acrylic Resins; D055598:Chemical Phenomena; D002627:Chemistry, Physical; D003116:Color; D003188:Composite Resins; D003801:Dental Veneers; D004548:Elasticity; D006244:Hardness; D008422:Materials Testing; D008689:Methacrylates; D008768:Methylmethacrylates; D011140:Polyurethanes; D019279:Resin Cements; D012821:Silanes; D013314:Stress, Mechanical; D013499:Surface Properties; D013718:Tensile Strength
D000180:Acrylic Resins; C029012:Composite Dental Resin; D003188:Composite Resins; D008689:Methacrylates; D008768:Methylmethacrylates; D011140:Polyurethanes; D019279:Resin Cements; D012821:Silanes; C046981:ESPE Visio-Gem; C057365:Dentacolor