Compatibility of types III/IV Gypsum with addition silicone impression material

Elysia Santini, Octarina
{"title":"Compatibility of types III/IV Gypsum with addition silicone impression material","authors":"Elysia Santini, Octarina","doi":"10.26912/SDJ.V3I1.3664","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Background: Addition silicone is an elastomeric impression material used to obtain an accurate impression. Compatibility between impression material and gypsum will affect the surface quality of the resulting models. Types III and IV gypsum are very commonly used in dentistry to pour impressions and produce working models; despite this, there has been no further research regarding the differences between the two types in terms of compatibility with addition silicone impression materials. Objectives: To compare the compatibility of types III and IV gypsum with addition silicone impression materials. Methods: Gypsum compatibility was assessed on the basis of its ability to reproduce lines of certain widths. Thirty samples were produced by impressing a stainless steel ruled block (in accordance with ANSI/ADA Specification No. 19) with addition silicone (independent variable) and then pouring in type III or IV gypsum (dependent variable). The samples were divided into two groups: in Group A, addition silicone was poured with type III gypsum; in Group B, addition silicone was poured with type IV gypsum. The lines from the stainless steel ruled block that formed in the gypsum samples were observed with a microscope at 10x magnification. Each line was then assessed with a score from 1 to 4, according to Morrow's standardization, where a score of 1 indicates that the line was reproduced clearly and sharply over its entire 25 mm length, and a score of 4 indicates that the line is reproduced incompletely with roughness and/or blemishes. The data were analyzed using the Mann–Whitney U test. Results: Group B (addition silicone poured with type IV gypsum) produced more results rated as 1 (60% of the group's samples) than Group A (only 46.67% of the group's samples). Conclusion: On the basis of the number of scores rated as 1, type IV gypsum was more compatible than type III gypsum with addition silicone.","PeriodicalId":32049,"journal":{"name":"Scientific Dental Journal","volume":"3 1","pages":"17 - 22"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2019-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Scientific Dental Journal","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.26912/SDJ.V3I1.3664","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

Abstract

Background: Addition silicone is an elastomeric impression material used to obtain an accurate impression. Compatibility between impression material and gypsum will affect the surface quality of the resulting models. Types III and IV gypsum are very commonly used in dentistry to pour impressions and produce working models; despite this, there has been no further research regarding the differences between the two types in terms of compatibility with addition silicone impression materials. Objectives: To compare the compatibility of types III and IV gypsum with addition silicone impression materials. Methods: Gypsum compatibility was assessed on the basis of its ability to reproduce lines of certain widths. Thirty samples were produced by impressing a stainless steel ruled block (in accordance with ANSI/ADA Specification No. 19) with addition silicone (independent variable) and then pouring in type III or IV gypsum (dependent variable). The samples were divided into two groups: in Group A, addition silicone was poured with type III gypsum; in Group B, addition silicone was poured with type IV gypsum. The lines from the stainless steel ruled block that formed in the gypsum samples were observed with a microscope at 10x magnification. Each line was then assessed with a score from 1 to 4, according to Morrow's standardization, where a score of 1 indicates that the line was reproduced clearly and sharply over its entire 25 mm length, and a score of 4 indicates that the line is reproduced incompletely with roughness and/or blemishes. The data were analyzed using the Mann–Whitney U test. Results: Group B (addition silicone poured with type IV gypsum) produced more results rated as 1 (60% of the group's samples) than Group A (only 46.67% of the group's samples). Conclusion: On the basis of the number of scores rated as 1, type IV gypsum was more compatible than type III gypsum with addition silicone.
III/IV型石膏与添加硅胶印模材料的兼容性
背景:添加硅胶是一种弹性体压印材料,用于获得准确的压印。压模材料与石膏之间的相容性将影响所得模型的表面质量。III型和IV型石膏在牙科中非常常用,用于倒模和制作工作模型;尽管如此,目前还没有进一步的研究关于这两种类型之间的差异,在兼容性方面添加硅树脂的印象材料。目的:比较三、四型石膏与添加硅酮压模材料的相容性。方法:根据再现一定宽度线条的能力来评价石膏的相容性。通过添加硅酮(自变量)对不锈钢直尺块(按照ANSI/ADA规范No. 19)进行压印,然后倒入III型或IV型石膏(因变量),生产了30个样品。将样品分为两组:A组,添加硅酮,倒入III型石膏;B组用IV型石膏浇筑硅酮。用10倍放大镜观察石膏样品中形成的不锈钢直条块的线条。然后,根据莫罗的标准化标准,对每条线进行1到4分的评估,其中1分表示线条在整个25毫米的长度上清晰而锐利地再现,而4分表示线条再现不完整,带有粗糙度和/或瑕疵。使用Mann-Whitney U检验对数据进行分析。结果:B组(添加IV型石膏的硅胶)产生的1级结果(占组内样品的60%)多于A组(仅占组内样品的46.67%)。结论:在得分为1的基础上,IV型石膏与添加硅酮的石膏的相容性优于III型石膏。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
9
审稿时长
7 weeks
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信