目的 比较四种Beta-钛正畸弓丝的合金成分及力学性能,为临床选择提供参考.方法 选用EDAX X-射线能谱分析仪,联合SUPRA<'TM>55热场发射扫描电子显微镜(SEM)分析弓丝的合金元素成分.采用纳米压痕技术测定弓丝纳米弹性模量及硬度;采用三点弯曲试验方法测定弓丝负荷-形变曲线,比较弓丝的力学性能.结果 四种Beta-钛丝合金成分中均含有Ti、Zr、Mo、Sn四种元素,Ti在四种Beta-钛丝中所占比重均高于70%.Ormco和Masel公司的Beta-钛丝弹性模量小于Smart与GAC公司的Beta-钛丝.GAC的Beta-钛丝硬度最大.当形变3mm的负荷完全去除时,四种Beta-钛丝均有残余形变,Smart和Ormco大于GAC和Masel公司的Beta-钛丝残余形变.结论 四种Beta-钛丝合金成分基本相同,力学性能有一定差异,可根据临床实际情况选取合适弓丝.%Objective To compare the elemental components and mechanical properties of Beta-titanium alloy wires from four different companies. Methods Beta-titanium alloy wires from Ormco, Masel, Smart and GAC company were selected in this study. Energy dispersive microanalysis of X-RAY and SUPRATm55 scanning electron microscope were used to analyze the alloy compositions. Nano Indenter XP was used to test elasticity modulus and hardness of Beta-titanium alloy wires. Three-Bending Test was performed to compare the differences in mechanical properties. Results All the wires tested contained Ti,and Ti accounted for more than 70％ in weight. The values of elasticity modulus were lower in Ormco and Masel than in GAC and Smart The value of hardness was highest in GAC. There were residual deformations in all the wires when unloaded from 3mm deflection. The residual deformation was larger in Smart and Ormco than in GAC and MaseL Conclusion The elemental components of four kinds of Beta-titanium alloy wires were almost the same, but differences existed in mechanical properties. It suggests that we choose proper wires depending on different clinical situations.
展开▼
