Warning: include(/includes/code.php) [function.include]: failed to open stream: No such file or directory in /home/quintpub/public_html/journals/qi/archive_display_abstract.php3 on line 1

Warning: include() [function.include]: Failed opening '/includes/code.php' for inclusion (include_path='.:/usr/lib/php:/usr/local/lib/php') in /home/quintpub/public_html/journals/qi/archive_display_abstract.php3 on line 1
Quintessence Publishing
Home Subscription Services

Warning: mysql_num_rows() expects parameter 1 to be resource, boolean given in /home/quintpub/public_html/includes/journal_includes/qi.php on line 32
Quintessence International
QI Home Page
QI Pre-Print
About the Editor
Editorial Board
Accepted Manuscripts
Author Guidelines
Submission Form
Reprints / Articles

Quintessence International

Year 2001
Volume 32 , Issue 10

Pages: 805 - 810

A practice-based assessment of the handling of a fast-setting polyvinyl siloxane impression material used with the dual-arch tray technique

F. J. Trevor Burke, DDS, MSc, MDS, MGDS/Russell J. Crisp, BDS

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.


  © 2022 Quintessence Publishing Co Inc

Home | Subscription Services | Books | Journals | Multimedia | Events | Blog
Terms of Use | Privacy Policy | About Us | Contact Us | Advertising | Help | Sitemap | Catalog