PubMed · 398855
The source did not provide an abstract. Follow the original record for more information.
Explore connections, maps & timelines
H Aks. 1979. Combination plaster-rubber impression for fixed restorations.. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/398855/
Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.
KEEP EXPLORING
An accurate cost analysis of the use of one of the new synthetic casting materials (Cellacast) compared with plaster-of-Paris (Gypsona) was undertaken over a 3-month period in the fracture clinic of Cardiff Royal Infirmary. The mean duration of usage before failure for synthetic forearm, scaphoid and below-knee casts was found to be approximately twice that of plaster casts. The use of synthetic casting materials was found to be cost-effective in situations where there was thought to be a high probability that structural failure of the cast would occur. Guidelines for the use of plaster-of-Paris and synthetic casting materials are presented.
PURPOSE: In the American National Standards Institute/American Dental Association specification no. 19, compatibility of impression materials with dental stones is assessed by the presence of a 20-microns-wide line reproduced on an unmodified calcium sulfate dihydrate cast. In actual dental practice, modified type IV dental stones are used, although little is known of their compatibility with polysulfide impression materials. This study evaluated the compatibility of 6 polysulfide impression materials and 11 modified type IV dental stones. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A line 20 microns wide was etched on four glass dies. Four samples of each combination of impression material and dental stone were prepared according to the manufacturer's directions with an additional 3 minutes for the final setting time. Compatibility was determined by the presence of the reproduced line on the dental stones, as observed under low angle 10 x magnification by four rater groups. RESULTS: The line was reproduced on all of the impression specimens, and the examiners recorded 66 positive identifications of the line on the stone casts out of a possible 1,056 ratings for a total of 6.25% of the specimens. Out of a possible 66 impression-stone combinations, only 18 reproduced the 20-microns line. The combinations reproducing the lines most frequently (75%) were Neoplex with Blue Die Stone (Columbus Dental, St Louis, MO) and Coeflex with Indic Die Stone (Coe Lab Inc, Chicago, IL). CONCLUSIONS: The study showed that many combinations of polysulfide impression materials and modified type IV dental stones did not reproduce the 20-microns line; therefore, not every polysulfide is compatible with every type IV dental stone.
If we have learned anything from our experiences with all-ceramic systems such as Cerestore, Cerapearl, and even Dicor, it is that it takes years to uncover the strengths, weaknesses, and limitations of new materials and technologies. Manufacturers' initial claims for fit, strength, esthetics, biocompatibility, wear characteristics, and clinical performance should be viewed as preliminary until supported by independent laboratory and clinical studies. Laboratory testing alone may not provide sufficient insight into the relative strengths and weaknesses of products or assure comparable performance in the commercial dental laboratory or the ultimate testing arena, the oral environment. Moreover, the diversity of the new materials and techniques discussed demonstrates the breadth and depth of the technologic changes in dental biomaterials. The rate at which these dental products enter the marketplace and their sheer number alone are indeed staggering. Furthermore, these advances are not emerging from any single nation but from manufacturers all around the world (Japan, Germany, as well as the United States), indicating our international reliance on one another. Clearly, the decade of the 1990s is emerging as an exciting period in the development of biomaterials in comprehensive fixed prosthodontics and dentistry in general.