Surface roughness and hardness of macromolecule ocular prosthesis materials
10.3969/j.issn.2095-4344.2014.08.018
- VernacularTitle:高分子义眼材料表面的粗糙度及硬度
- Author:
Xin YANG
;
Yan SONG
;
Fantao WANG
;
Peng WANG
;
Changlei WANG
- Publication Type:Journal Article
- Keywords:
biocompatible materials;
eye,artificial;
hardness;
microbubbles
- From:
Chinese Journal of Tissue Engineering Research
2014;(8):1257-1262
- CountryChina
- Language:Chinese
-
Abstract:
BACKGROUND:The physical properties of macromolecule ocular prosthesis materials, such as density, hardness, mechanical strength, can affect the working accuracy of ocular prosthesis and can also affect the surface roughness of ocular prosthesis, thus affecting the comfort when the patients wear.
OBJECTIVE:To study the differences of different macromolecule ocular prosthesis materials in bubble generation rate, hardness and surface roughness.
METHODS:Thirty-seven test pieces, 30 mm×30 mm×2 mm, were made and then divided to seven groups according to their brands, caled groups A, B, C, D, E, F, G, each group of five pieces. One surface of each test piece was polished in accordance with the principle of coarse to fine, the surface roughness of the two surfaces and hardness on the polished surface were measured, and then the bubble formation rate of the material was calculated.
RESULTS AND CONCLUSION:The surface roughness values of groups A-G were (0.078±0.016), (0.074±0.019), (0.075±0.022), (0.066±0.020), (0.075±0.017), (0.068±0.015), and (0.067±0.017) μm, respectively. There was no significant difference in the surface roughness between the groups (P > 0.05). The hardness values of groups A-G were 766.92±3.71, 771.84±14.51, 791.20±9.64, 804.50±4.49, 779.00±17.92, 772.20±19.18, 704.00±7.23, respectively. There was a significant difference in the hardness between groups D, G and the other groups (P < 0.05) as wel as between group D and group G (P < 0.05), but there was no significant difference between the other groups (P > 0.05). The bubble generation rates of groups A-G were (8.87±0.29)%, (8.29±1.02)%, (6.94±0.43)%, (4.83±0.20)%, (7.59±0.19)%, (8.61±0.25)%, (4.89±0.17)%, respectively. There was a significant difference in the bubble generation rate between groups D, G and the other groups (P < 0.05), but there was no significant difference between group D and group G (P > 0.05), as wel as between the other groups (P > 0.05). To a certain extent, the smaler the bubble formation rate is, the greater the hardness and the smaler the surface roughness are.
