Cargando…
Comparison of the surface roughness of gypsum models constructed using various impression materials and gypsum products
BACKGROUND/PURPOSE: This study compared the surface roughness of gypsum models constructed using various impression materials, gypsum products, and storage times before repouring. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Three alginate impression materials, four commercial silicone impression materials, and three typ...
Autores principales: | , , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
Association for Dental Sciences of the Republic of China
2016
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6395154/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30894941 http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jds.2012.11.002 |
_version_ | 1783399033798131712 |
---|---|
author | Chang, Yi-Chih Yu, Chien-Hung Liang, Wen-Miin Tu, Ming-Gene Chen, San-Yue |
author_facet | Chang, Yi-Chih Yu, Chien-Hung Liang, Wen-Miin Tu, Ming-Gene Chen, San-Yue |
author_sort | Chang, Yi-Chih |
collection | PubMed |
description | BACKGROUND/PURPOSE: This study compared the surface roughness of gypsum models constructed using various impression materials, gypsum products, and storage times before repouring. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Three alginate impression materials, four commercial silicone impression materials, and three types of gypsum product (MG crystal rock, Super hard stone, and MS plaster) were used. Impression materials were mixed and poured into five plastic rings (20 mm in diameter and 2 mm high) for each group, and the surfaces of the set gypsum product models of 63 groups, which were poured immediately, and 1 hour and 24 hours later, were assessed using a surface roughness tester. One-way ANOVA and Bonferroni's comparison tests were used for the statistical analyses. RESULTS: The surface roughness: (1) was greater for most specimens constructed from alginate impression material (2.72 ± 0.45–7.42 ± 0.66 μm) than from silicone impression materials (1.86 ± 0.19–2.75 ± 0.44 μm); (2) differed with the type of gypsum product when using alginate impression materials (surface roughness of Super hard stone > MG crystal rock > MS plaster), but differed little for silicone impression materials; and (3) differed very little with the storage time before repouring. CONCLUSION: The surface roughness of stone models was mainly determined by the type of alginate impression material, and was less affected by the type of silicone rubber impression material or gypsum product, or the storage time before repouring. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-6395154 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2016 |
publisher | Association for Dental Sciences of the Republic of China |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-63951542019-03-20 Comparison of the surface roughness of gypsum models constructed using various impression materials and gypsum products Chang, Yi-Chih Yu, Chien-Hung Liang, Wen-Miin Tu, Ming-Gene Chen, San-Yue J Dent Sci Original Article BACKGROUND/PURPOSE: This study compared the surface roughness of gypsum models constructed using various impression materials, gypsum products, and storage times before repouring. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Three alginate impression materials, four commercial silicone impression materials, and three types of gypsum product (MG crystal rock, Super hard stone, and MS plaster) were used. Impression materials were mixed and poured into five plastic rings (20 mm in diameter and 2 mm high) for each group, and the surfaces of the set gypsum product models of 63 groups, which were poured immediately, and 1 hour and 24 hours later, were assessed using a surface roughness tester. One-way ANOVA and Bonferroni's comparison tests were used for the statistical analyses. RESULTS: The surface roughness: (1) was greater for most specimens constructed from alginate impression material (2.72 ± 0.45–7.42 ± 0.66 μm) than from silicone impression materials (1.86 ± 0.19–2.75 ± 0.44 μm); (2) differed with the type of gypsum product when using alginate impression materials (surface roughness of Super hard stone > MG crystal rock > MS plaster), but differed little for silicone impression materials; and (3) differed very little with the storage time before repouring. CONCLUSION: The surface roughness of stone models was mainly determined by the type of alginate impression material, and was less affected by the type of silicone rubber impression material or gypsum product, or the storage time before repouring. Association for Dental Sciences of the Republic of China 2016-03 2013-02-04 /pmc/articles/PMC6395154/ /pubmed/30894941 http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jds.2012.11.002 Text en Copyright © 2012, Association for Dental Sciences of the Republic of China. Published by Elsevier Taiwan LLC. This is an open access. http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/ This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/). |
spellingShingle | Original Article Chang, Yi-Chih Yu, Chien-Hung Liang, Wen-Miin Tu, Ming-Gene Chen, San-Yue Comparison of the surface roughness of gypsum models constructed using various impression materials and gypsum products |
title | Comparison of the surface roughness of gypsum models constructed using various impression materials and gypsum products |
title_full | Comparison of the surface roughness of gypsum models constructed using various impression materials and gypsum products |
title_fullStr | Comparison of the surface roughness of gypsum models constructed using various impression materials and gypsum products |
title_full_unstemmed | Comparison of the surface roughness of gypsum models constructed using various impression materials and gypsum products |
title_short | Comparison of the surface roughness of gypsum models constructed using various impression materials and gypsum products |
title_sort | comparison of the surface roughness of gypsum models constructed using various impression materials and gypsum products |
topic | Original Article |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6395154/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30894941 http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jds.2012.11.002 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT changyichih comparisonofthesurfaceroughnessofgypsummodelsconstructedusingvariousimpressionmaterialsandgypsumproducts AT yuchienhung comparisonofthesurfaceroughnessofgypsummodelsconstructedusingvariousimpressionmaterialsandgypsumproducts AT liangwenmiin comparisonofthesurfaceroughnessofgypsummodelsconstructedusingvariousimpressionmaterialsandgypsumproducts AT tuminggene comparisonofthesurfaceroughnessofgypsummodelsconstructedusingvariousimpressionmaterialsandgypsumproducts AT chensanyue comparisonofthesurfaceroughnessofgypsummodelsconstructedusingvariousimpressionmaterialsandgypsumproducts |