PubMed · 14817050
The source did not provide an abstract. Follow the original record for more information.
Explore connections, maps & timelines
G HRUSKA. 1950. [Pinlay: direct or indirect method?].. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/14817050/
Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.
KEEP EXPLORING
OBJECTIVES: To investigate, by questionnaire, the use and selection of materials and techniques for indirect restorations and fixed prosthodontics by dental practitioners in the North West of England and Scotland. METHODS: A questionnaire was sent to 1,000 general dental practitioners selected at random from dentists in Scotland and the North West of England. Non-responders were sent another questionnaire after a period of 4 weeks had elapsed. RESULTS: A total of 701 usable questionnaires were returned, giving a response rate of 70%. When selecting a material for the core build-up of vital teeth, practitioners used the following materials (%): amalgam (60), dual and light-cured resin composite (54), glass-ionomer cements (47), compomer (29) and resin-modified glass-ionomer cements (24). Where the use of a post was indicated indirect posts of both precious (67) and non-precious (37) alloys were preferred to prefabricated posts by the majority of practitioners for the restoration of root filled teeth. Direct titanium (14) and stainless steel (14) posts were not used extensively. Impression materials used by the practitioners were as follows: addition-cured silicone (70), condensation-cured silicone (20), polyether (9) and polysulphide (2). Traditional glass-ionomer cements (59) were used for the luting of single and multiple porcelain fused to metal units, with zinc phosphate and polycarboxylate cements (33) being the preferred alternatives. CONCLUSIONS: The majority of the practitioners surveyed in this study used: amalgam for core build-ups; indirect posts; addition-cured silicone for impressions; and glass-ionomer cements for luting procedures.
AIM: Various ethical and legal guidelines require dental practitioners to adequately design, prescribe and fabricate good quality prostheses. The purpose of this investigation was to examine the quality of written instructions and choice of impression trays and materials for both fixed and removable prosthodontics in Ireland and the United Kingdom. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A pre-piloted questionnaire was distributed to a number of large commercial laboratories geographically distributed throughout the United Kingdom and Ireland. Information was sought relating to the quality of written instructions and use of impression trays and materials for three forms of 'dental precision casting' - cobalt-chromium based removable partial dentures, full veneer porcelain-fused-to-metal crowns, and conventional fixed bridges. RESULTS: Six hundred questionnaires were distributed, and information was received relating to 447 items of prosthodontic treatment (response rate= 75%). Ninety-five per cent of cases were privately funded. Using pre-determined grading criteria, poor or no written instructions were provided in one-half of cases examined. One-half of master impressions were made using a plastic stock tray. The technician felt that material had been appropriately disinfected prior to being sent to the laboratory in only 57% of cases. CONCLUSION: The written instructions and master impressions examined in this study failed to meet the relevant ethical and legal guidelines in approximately 50% of cases.
This article describes a simple procedure for reproducing the internal contours of existing crowns to rebuild composite core foundations for endodontically treated abutment teeth. In the event of core fracture or recurrent caries under a crown, problems may be encountered when constructing a new dowel and core to retrofit an existing crown to the newly fabricated core. The procedure described in this article involves the use of a custom-made template and plastic foil to fabricate new composite core foundations for existing crowns.