• 에너지공학
• /
• 제8권2호
• /
• pp.272-278
• /
• 1999

본 연구에서는 지름 30mm, 길이 45mm인 brass와 aluminium 원통 실린더의 접촉면이 ⅰ) 진공 상태에 있을 때 , ⅱ) silicone grease를 충전하였을 때 , ⅲ) silicone grease와 aluminium 분말 (#325) 혼합물을 충전하였을 때의 열접촉저항을 측정하였고, 그 결과를 Fouche 의 해석 모델과 비교하였다. 진공상태에서 비접촉면의 열접촉저항은 표면의 가공 상태에 따라 (2~100)$\times$$10^{-5}$($m^2$$^{\circ}C$/W)의 분포를 나타내었고 접촉 표면을 연마하였을 때에는 거친 표면에 비하여 약 30~50%의 열접촉저항저감을 나타내었다. 그러나, silicone grease를 충전했을 때에는 열접촉저항 값이 약 5~10정도 감소하는 경향을 나타내었다. Fouche 모델을 이용한 해석 결과는 silicone grease로 충전한 접촉면에 대해서 각 10~30%범위에서 아주 잘 일치하였다.

• The Journal of Advanced Prosthodontics
• /
• 제11권5호
• /
• pp.262-270
• /
• 2019

PURPOSE. The purpose of this in vitro study was to evaluate the marginal misfits of three-unit frameworks fabricated with conventional and digital impressions techniques. MATERIALS AND METHODS. Thirty brass canine and second premolar abutment preparations were fabricated by using a computer numerical control machine and were randomly divided into 3 groups (n=10) as follows: conventional impression group (Group Ci), Cerec Omnicam (Group Cdi), and 3shape TRIOS-3 (Group Tdi) digital impression groups. The laser-sintered metal frameworks were designed and fabricated with conventional and digital impressions. The marginal adaptation was assessed with a stereomicroscope at ${\times}30$ magnification. The data were analyzed with 1-way analysis of variances (ANOVAs) and the independent simple t tests. RESULTS. A statistically significant difference was found between the frameworks fabricated by conventional methods and those fabricated by digital impression methods. Multiple comparison results revealed that the frameworks in Group Ci (average, $98.8{\pm}16.43{\mu}m$; canine, $93.59{\pm}16.82{\mu}m$; premolar, $104.10{\pm}15.02{\mu}m$) had larger marginal misfit values than those in Group Cdi (average, $63.78{\pm}14.05{\mu}m$; canine, $62.73{\pm}13.71{\mu}m$; premolar, $64.84{\pm}15.06{\mu}m$) and Group Tdi (average, $65.14{\pm}18.05{\mu}m$; canine, $70.64{\pm}19.02{\mu}m$; premolar, $59.64{\pm}16.10{\mu}m$) (P=.000 for average; P=.001 for canine; P<.001 for premolar). No statistical difference was found between the marginal misfits of canine and premolar abutment teeth within the same groups (P>.05). CONCLUSION. The three-unit frameworks fabricated with digital impression techniques showed better marginal fit compared to conventional impression techniques. All marginal misfit values were clinically acceptable.