摘要
Objectives: The effect of ceramics construction (press- able, machinable) and corrosion on flexural strength and micro-hardness was studied. Materials & Methods: Two types of ceramics were tested: IPS e-max Press and IPS e-max CAD. Forty samples were constructed and divided into 2 groups according to the type of ceramics. Each group was then subdivided into 2 subgroups. Subgroups 1 were not subjected to corrosion while subgroups 2 were subjected to corro-sion test. Finally each subgroup was divided into 2 classes according to the type of test: biaxial flexural strength, micro-hardness. Results: There was a sig-nificant difference between the two tested ceramics as regard weight loss as IPS e-max CAD recorded less weight loss than IPS e-max Press. As regard the flex-ural strength, IPS e-max CAD recorded significant higher strength than IPS e-max Press. Corroded sam- ples recorded significant lower flexural strength than non-corroded samples for the two tested ceramics. As regard the Vickers micro-hardness test, the results showed significant difference between the two tested ceramics. IPS e-max CAD recorded higher mi-cro-hardness values than IPS e-max Press. The results also showed that the corroded samples recorded no significant micro-hardness values than non- corroded samples for the two tested ceramics. Conclusions: IPS e-max CAD recorded less weight loss weight loss after being subjected to corrosion test than IPS e-max Press. The method of fabrication affected the flexural strength µ-hardness of ceramic as machinable ceramic (e-max CAD) recorded significant higher data than pressable ceramic (e-mas Press). Corrosion decreased the flexural strength of both tested ceramics but had no effect on micro- hardness.
Objectives: The effect of ceramics construction (press- able, machinable) and corrosion on flexural strength and micro-hardness was studied. Materials & Methods: Two types of ceramics were tested: IPS e-max Press and IPS e-max CAD. Forty samples were constructed and divided into 2 groups according to the type of ceramics. Each group was then subdivided into 2 subgroups. Subgroups 1 were not subjected to corrosion while subgroups 2 were subjected to corro-sion test. Finally each subgroup was divided into 2 classes according to the type of test: biaxial flexural strength, micro-hardness. Results: There was a sig-nificant difference between the two tested ceramics as regard weight loss as IPS e-max CAD recorded less weight loss than IPS e-max Press. As regard the flex-ural strength, IPS e-max CAD recorded significant higher strength than IPS e-max Press. Corroded sam- ples recorded significant lower flexural strength than non-corroded samples for the two tested ceramics. As regard the Vickers micro-hardness test, the results showed significant difference between the two tested ceramics. IPS e-max CAD recorded higher mi-cro-hardness values than IPS e-max Press. The results also showed that the corroded samples recorded no significant micro-hardness values than non- corroded samples for the two tested ceramics. Conclusions: IPS e-max CAD recorded less weight loss weight loss after being subjected to corrosion test than IPS e-max Press. The method of fabrication affected the flexural strength µ-hardness of ceramic as machinable ceramic (e-max CAD) recorded significant higher data than pressable ceramic (e-mas Press). Corrosion decreased the flexural strength of both tested ceramics but had no effect on micro- hardness.
