1981
DOI: 10.1016/0022-3913(81)90041-x
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Inner surface roughness of complete cast crowns made by centrifugal casting machines

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1
1

Citation Types

0
7
0
2

Year Published

1982
1982
2013
2013

Publication Types

Select...
7
1

Relationship

0
8

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 21 publications
(9 citation statements)
references
References 4 publications
0
7
0
2
Order By: Relevance
“…4). The specimen's surface roughness was qualitatively evaluated with Scanning Electron Microscope [4,11,12]. The pictomicrographs were made with SEM at 9200 and 9500 magnifications (Figs.…”
Section: Measurement Of Marginal Discrepancymentioning
confidence: 99%
“…4). The specimen's surface roughness was qualitatively evaluated with Scanning Electron Microscope [4,11,12]. The pictomicrographs were made with SEM at 9200 and 9500 magnifications (Figs.…”
Section: Measurement Of Marginal Discrepancymentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Previous studies suggested that numerous factors such as alloy type, location in the mold, the mold and casting temperatures, and sandblast method influence the surface condition of the castings 5,27) . In the present study, the mold temperatures at casting with QHM and CHM were according to the manufacturers' suggestions.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…As regards granulometry, however, they differ: Heat Shock ® presents rougher particles, whereas Castotal ® has finer particles. The finer the particles of an investment, the smaller will be the surface irregularities of a casting 29,[32][33][34][35] . Therefore, it was not possible to completely accept the tested hypothesis.…”
Section: Analysis Of the Castingsmentioning
confidence: 99%