We are using cookies to implement functions like login, shopping cart or language selection for this website. Furthermore we use Google Analytics to create anonymized statistical reports of the usage which creates Cookies too. You will find more information in our privacy policy.
OK, I agree I do not want Google Analytics-Cookies
Quintessence International
Login:
username:

password:

Plattform:

Forgotten password?

Registration

Quintessence Int 32 (2001), No. 10     1. Nov. 2001
Quintessence Int 32 (2001), No. 10  (01.11.2001)

Page 805-810


A practice-based assessment of the handling of a fast-setting polyvinyl siloxane impression material used with the dual-arch tray technique
Burke, F. J. Trevor / Crisp, Russell J.
Objective: The purpose of this study was to assess a new impression material used in conjunction with the dual-arch technique. Method and materials: Ten members were selected at random from the Product Research and Evaluation by Practitioners (PREP) panel, a United Kingdom-based group of dental practitioners who are prepared to undertake research projects in their practices. Explanatory letters, a questionnaire, packs of the impression material, and dual-arch trays were distributed to the evaluators, together with instructions on the use of the materials. The practitioners were asked to use the materials and return the questionnaire after using the materials for a minimum of 10 impressions. Results: Three evaluators had not previously used the dual-arch technique, six had used it in the past or occasionally, and one used the technique routinely. A total of 115 impressions were recorded with Quick Step. The overall rating for ease of removal of impressions from the mouth was 4.7 on a linear scale in which 5 represented easy to remove and 1 represented difficult to remove. Four of the evaluators rated the working time as excellent and the remaining six as good. Eight of the evaluators stated that the quality of fit of the single-unit restoration constructed with the combined-arch tray was the same as that obtained when a conventional tray technique was used. Conclusion: The impression material under test scored highly for application in circumstances where the fields above and below the preparation margin were dry or had limited moisture problems. Eighty percent of the evaluators considered the impression and dual-arch tray technique to be of benefit to their practice.