• Journal of Energy Engineering
• /
• v.8 no.2
• /
• pp.272-278
• /
• 1999

In the present study, measurements of thermal contact resistance (TCR) were conducted for joints of brass and aluminium cylinders of 30 mm in diameter, 45 mm in length, when their interfaces were; ⅰ) under vacuum, ⅱ) charged with a pure silicone grease and ⅲ) charged with a mixture of silicone grease and powder of aluminium (#325). Also the data were compared with analytical calculations using Fouche's model. The data of TCR for joints under vacuum state varied in the range of (2∼100)${\times}$10$\^$-5/(㎡$^{\circ}C$/W) depending on their surface roughness. When the contact surfaces were carefully ground, a reduction of 30∼50% in TCR was obtained. But the surface treatment with silicone grease gave rise to a reduction of about 5∼10 times more than that of vacuum state. The analytical prediction by Fouche's model showed a good agreement within 10~30%, for the case of contact surface charged with silicone grease.

• The Journal of Advanced Prosthodontics
• /
• v.11 no.5
• /
• pp.262-270
• /
• 2019

PURPOSE. The purpose of this in vitro study was to evaluate the marginal misfits of three-unit frameworks fabricated with conventional and digital impressions techniques. MATERIALS AND METHODS. Thirty brass canine and second premolar abutment preparations were fabricated by using a computer numerical control machine and were randomly divided into 3 groups (n=10) as follows: conventional impression group (Group Ci), Cerec Omnicam (Group Cdi), and 3shape TRIOS-3 (Group Tdi) digital impression groups. The laser-sintered metal frameworks were designed and fabricated with conventional and digital impressions. The marginal adaptation was assessed with a stereomicroscope at ${\times}30$ magnification. The data were analyzed with 1-way analysis of variances (ANOVAs) and the independent simple t tests. RESULTS. A statistically significant difference was found between the frameworks fabricated by conventional methods and those fabricated by digital impression methods. Multiple comparison results revealed that the frameworks in Group Ci (average, $98.8{\pm}16.43{\mu}m$; canine, $93.59{\pm}16.82{\mu}m$; premolar, $104.10{\pm}15.02{\mu}m$) had larger marginal misfit values than those in Group Cdi (average, $63.78{\pm}14.05{\mu}m$; canine, $62.73{\pm}13.71{\mu}m$; premolar, $64.84{\pm}15.06{\mu}m$) and Group Tdi (average, $65.14{\pm}18.05{\mu}m$; canine, $70.64{\pm}19.02{\mu}m$; premolar, $59.64{\pm}16.10{\mu}m$) (P=.000 for average; P=.001 for canine; P<.001 for premolar). No statistical difference was found between the marginal misfits of canine and premolar abutment teeth within the same groups (P>.05). CONCLUSION. The three-unit frameworks fabricated with digital impression techniques showed better marginal fit compared to conventional impression techniques. All marginal misfit values were clinically acceptable.