PubMed Health⌕ Search

Biomedical subjects

Brian J Kenyon

Publications and source records attributed to Brian J Kenyon.

8 recordsLinked to original sources
PubMed2005

Dimensional accuracy of 7 die materials.

PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to compare the linear dimensional accuracy and the handling characteristics of 7 die materials. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A master die analogous to a complete veneer crown preparation was machined from medical grade stainless steel, and 3 measurements (1: vertical; 2 and 3: horizontal) were made from 3 scribed reference lines. Individual polyvinylsiloxane impressions were made (n = 10) for each of the specimens. The fabricated dies were measured (50x) to the nearest 0.0001 mm. Data were subject to ANOVA/Duncan tests at significance level 0.05 and pairwise comparisons. RESULTS: Type IV resin-impregnated dental stone and copper-plated dies most closely approximated the dimensions of the master die, and were not significantly different from each other in any of the pairwise comparisons. Conventional Types IV and V dental stone dies exhibited setting expansion within the range appropriate for gypsum. Epoxy resin die materials demonstrated shrinkage comparable to the expansion of the Types IV and V dies. Polyurethane dies displayed a combination of linear expansion and shrinkage. Bis-acryl composite resin dies had excessive shrinkage. CONCLUSIONS: Type IV resin-impregnated dental stone and copper-plated dies were more dimensionally accurate than the other die materials tested.

Calcium Sulfate↗
PubMed2005

Comparison of cavity preparation quality using an electric motor handpiece and an air turbine dental handpiece.

BACKGROUND: The high-speed high-torque (electric motor) handpiece is becoming more popular in dental offices and laboratories in the United States. It is reported to cut more precisely and to assist in the creation of finer margins that enhance cavity preparations. The authors conducted an in vitro study to compare the quality of cavity preparations fabricated with a high-speed high-torque (electric motor) handpiece and a high-speed low-torque (air turbine) handpiece. METHODS: Eighty-six dental students each cut two Class I preparations, one with an air turbine handpiece and the other with an electric motor high-speed handpiece. The authors asked the students to cut each preparation accurately to a circular outline and to establish a flat pulpal floor with 1.5 millimeters' depth, 90-degree exit angles, parallel vertical walls and sharp internal line angles, as well as to refine the preparation to achieve flat, smooth walls with a well-defined cavosurface margin. A single faculty member scored the preparations for criteria and refinement using a nine-point scale (range, 1-9). The authors analyzed the data statistically using paired t tests. RESULTS: In preparation criteria, the electric motor high-speed handpiece had a higher average grade than did the air turbine handpiece (5.07 and 4.90, respectively). For refinement, the average grade for the air turbine high-speed handpiece was greater than that for the electric motor high-speed handpiece (5.72 and 5.52, respectively). The differences were not statistically significant. CLINICAL IMPLICATIONS: The electric motor high-speed handpiece performed as well as, but not better than, the air turbine handpiece in the fabrication of high-quality cavity preparations.

Air↗
PubMedDate not supplied

Comparing comfort and wearability between Type III single-layered and double-layered EVA mouthguards.

This study compared two Type III ethylene vinyl acetate (EVA) mouthguards for wearability, comfort, fit, and patient preference. Twenty-two athletes each received two custom-fabricated athletic mouthguards, a single-layered vacuum-formed EVA mouthguard and a double-layered heat- and pressure-laminated EVA type. Athletes wore each type of mouthguard for a two-week period while playing basketball. At the end of each two-week period, the athletes completed questionnaires that evaluated 17 characteristics of each mouthguard type. Data were analyzed using the binomial test for small numbers. The double-layered heat- and pressure-laminated EVA mouthguard performed as well as or better than the single-layered vacuum-formed type in 14 of the 17 categories. There was a statistically significant patient preference for the double-layered heat- and pressure-laminated mouthguard.

Athletic Injuries↗