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...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Chang, Yi-Chih, Yu, Chien-Hung, Liang, Wen-Miin, Tu, Ming-Gene, Chen, San-Yue
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