ArticleEuropean journal of dentistry2024
Effect of Vinyl Acetate, Glass Fibers Contents, and Buffer Space on EVA's Mechanical Property and Shock Absorption Ability.
Article in European journal of dentistry, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesThe aim of the study was to evaluate the mechanical properties and impact absorption capacity of prototype materials comprising ethylene vinyl acetate (EVA) of different hardness reinforced using different amounts of glass fibers (GFs), considering a buffer space. MATERIALS AND
methodsSix prototype materials were made by adding E-GFs (5 and 10 wt%) to EVA with vinyl acetate (VA) contents of 9.4 wt% ("hard" or HA) and 27.5 wt% ("soft" or SO). Durometer hardness and tensile strength tests were performed to evaluate the mechanical properties of the materials. Moreover, an impact test was conducted using a customized pendulum impact tester to assess the impact absorption capacity (with or without a buffer space) of the specimens.
resultsThe mechanical properties of the prototypes, namely, durometer hardness, Young's modulus, and tensile strength, were significantly higher in the HA group than in the SO group, regardless of the presence or added amount of GFs. The addition of GFs, particularly in a large amount (10 wt%), significantly increased these values. In terms of the impact absorption capacity, the original hardness of the EVA material, that is, its VA content, had a more substantial effect than the presence or absence of GFs and the added amount of GFs. Interestingly, the HA specimens with the buffer space exhibited significantly higher impact absorption capacities than the SO specimens. Meanwhile, the SO specimens without the buffer space exhibited significantly higher impact absorption capacities than the HA specimens. Moreover, regardless of the sample material and impact distance, the buffer space significantly improved impact absorption. In particular, with the buffer space, the impact absorption capacity increased with the added amount of GFs.
conclusionThe basic mechanical properties, including durometer hardness, Young's modulus, and tensile strength, of the EVA prototype were significantly increased by reducing the amount of VA regardless of the presence or added amount of GFs. Adding GFs, particularly in large amounts, significantly increased the values of aforementioned mechanical properties. Impact absorption was significantly affected by the hardness of the original EVA material and enhanced by the addition of the buffer space. The HA specimen had a high shock absorption capacity with the buffer space, and the SO specimen had a high shock absorption capacity without the buffer space. With the buffer space, impact absorption improved with the amount of added GFs.
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.