Search In this Thesis
   Search In this Thesis  
العنوان
Radiation Emission Detection And
Assesment from Zirconia Dental
Implants And Different Zirconia
Ceramic Blocks /
المؤلف
Amin, Mahmoud Moustafa Mahmoud.
هيئة الاعداد
باحث / محمود مصطفى امين
مشرف / يسريه عطية
مشرف / يحيي صلاح ابو شادي
مشرف / فوزيه احمد
الموضوع
Department of Fixed Prosthodontics.
تاريخ النشر
2015.
عدد الصفحات
90P+1. :
اللغة
الإنجليزية
الدرجة
ماجستير
التخصص
طب الأسنان
تاريخ الإجازة
1/1/2015
مكان الإجازة
جامعة الاسكندريه - كلية طب الاسنان - Fixed Prosthodontics
الفهرس
Only 14 pages are availabe for public view

from 118

from 118

Abstract

This study was to detect and evaluate gamma radiation emission for
prefabricated zirconia dental implant and customized zirconia implants made
from different zirconia blocks by CAD-CAM machines.
For this aim the prefabricated implant (ceraroot) was scanned using two
different CAD-CAM machines (Ceron and cerec 3), and three implant groups
were milled from three different types of zirconia blocks (cercon ht,vita yz
and zircad)
group I: Ceraroot implants. (Control group).
group II: Cercon ht zirconia implants.
group III: IPS e.max ZirCAD implants.
group IV: Vita inceram YZ for inlab implants.
The gamma radiation emission was measured through hyper pure
germanium detector to determine the amount of radioactive radionuclide.
The amount of uranium radioactive series (238U) ,thornium radioactive
series (232Th) and radioactive potassium (40K) was measured for each group.
Afterwards the amount of annual internal exposure dose was
calculated.
The results were:
1. The mean value of 238U radionuclide had the highest value in group III
(18.617 Bq/Kg), it showed significant difference when compared to the
other three groups.
2. The mean value of 232Th radionulide had the highest value in group II
(39.873 Bq/Kg) it showed significant difference when compared to group
I and group IV and no significant difference when compared to Group3. The mean value of 40K radionulide had the highest value in group III
(73.7901 Bq/Kg) it showed significant difference when compared to all
groups.
4. No significant difference between the annual internal exposure dose
between the four groups.