• Journal of the Korean Society for Industrial and Applied Mathematics
• /
• v.9 no.2
• /
• pp.55-64
• /
• 2005

In this paper, generalized difference methods(GDM) for one-dimensional viscoelastic problems are proposed and analyzed. The new initial values are given in the generalized difference scheme, so we obtain optimal error estimates in $L^p$ and $W^{1,p}(2\;{\leq}\;p\;{\leq}\;{\infty})$ as well as some superconvergence estimates in $W^{1,p}(2\;{\leq}\;p\;{\leq}\;{\infty})$ between the GDM solution and the generalized Ritz-Volterra projection of the exact solution.

• The Journal of Korean Academy of Prosthodontics
• /
• v.43 no.6
• /
• pp.717-726
• /
• 2005

Statement of problem. One of the common problems of provisional crown and fixed partial denture materials is that when they are subjected to constant loads for a long period of time, they exhibit a dimensional change (creep). Purpose. The aim of this study was to investigate the viscoelastic behaviour of polymer-based provisional crown and fixed partial denture materials with time at constant compressive load. Material and methods. Three dimethacrylate-based materials (Protemp 3 Garant, Temphase, Luxatemp) and one monomethacrylate-based material (Trim) were selected. Dimensional changes of the specimens were recorded by a LVDT to evaluate their viscoelastic behavior and creep strain. For all specimens, two loading procedures were used. At first, static compressive stress of 4 MPa was applied for 30 minutes and followed by 1 hour of strain recovery. Then, after 24 hours of water storage, the specimens were loaded again. The creep values between materials were statistically analyzed using one-way ANOVA and multiple comparison $Scheff\acute{e}$ test. Independent samples t-test was also used to identify the difference of creep strain between first and secondary loading conditions at the significance level of 0.05. Results. Following application of the first loading, Trim showed the highest maximum creep strain (32.7%) followed by Luxatemp, Protemp 3 Garant and Temphase, with values of 3.78%, 2.86% and 1.77%, respectively. Trim was significantly different from other materials (P<0.05), while there were no significant differences among Luxatemp, Protemp 3 Garant and Temphase (P>0.05). The highest recovery and permanent set of Trim, were significantly different from those of others (P<0.05). At the secondary loading of the dimethacrylate-based materials, creep deformation, recovery and permanent set decreased and the percentage of recovery increased, while in Trim, all values of the measurements increased. This result showed that the secondary loading at 24 hours produced a significant creep magnitude. Conclusion. The dimethacrylate-based provisional crown and fixed partial denture materials showed significantly higher creep resistance and lower deformation than the monomethacrylate-based material. Thus, monomethacrylate-based materials should not be used in long-term stress-bearing situations.