Literature DB >> 17280886

Assessment of preference of mixing techniques and duration of mixing and tray loading for two viscosities of vinyl polysiloxane material.

Jung Nam1, Ariel J Raigrodski, John Townsend, Xavier Lepe, Lloyd A Mancl.   

Abstract

STATEMENT OF PROBLEM: Information regarding operators' preferences for different impression mixing techniques and duration of mixing and tray loading is limited.
PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to assess operators' preferences, and the duration of mixing and tray loading using different mixing techniques.
MATERIAL AND METHODS: Thirty dentists, 30 dental assistants, and 30 inexperienced dental students evaluated mixing heavy-body vinyl polysiloxane material (VPS) using electronic mixing compared to automixing, and extra-heavy-body material using electronic mixing compared to hand mixing. Participants rated their level of preference using a scale from 0 to 10 for ease of mixing, control of loading, quality of mixing, level of cleanliness, and overall rating. The duration of mixing and tray loading was also measured. Mean values were compared within participant groups using the paired t test (alpha=.05) and between groups using 1-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) (alpha=.05). Holm's procedure was used to adjust the level of significance for the multiple comparisons.
RESULTS: The paired t test showed that mean values of level of preference for electronic mixing were significantly higher (P<.001 to .033) than those for automixing or hand mixing. The mean values of duration of mixing and tray loading with electronic mixing were significantly higher (P<.001 to .002) than those with automixing or hand mixing, except for students using heavy-body materials (P=.31). One-way ANOVA showed that there were no significant differences between the 3 participant groups in preference and duration of mixing and tray loading, both of heavy-body and extra-heavy-body VPS impression materials.
CONCLUSIONS: All participant groups preferred electronic mixing to automixing or hand mixing. Electronic mixing was significantly slower for all groups except for students using heavy-body materials. There was no significant difference between the 3 participant groups in the preference or duration of mixing and tray loading for the mixing techniques tested.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2007        PMID: 17280886     DOI: 10.1016/j.prosdent.2006.11.007

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Prosthet Dent        ISSN: 0022-3913            Impact factor:   3.426


  2 in total

1.  Practice-based PREP Panel handling evaluation of a new impression mixing device and the associated material.

Authors:  F J Trevor Burke; Russell J Crisp; Thomas Klettke
Journal:  Int Dent J       Date:  2011-12       Impact factor: 2.607

Review 2.  The elastomers for complete denture impression: A review of the literature.

Authors:  Elie E Daou
Journal:  Saudi Dent J       Date:  2010-07-17
  2 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.