A PHP Error was encountered

Severity: Warning

Message: file_get_contents(https://...@pubfacts.com&api_key=b8daa3ad693db53b1410957c26c9a51b4908&a=1): Failed to open stream: HTTP request failed! HTTP/1.1 429 Too Many Requests

Filename: helpers/my_audit_helper.php

Line Number: 176

Backtrace:

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 176
Function: file_get_contents

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 250
Function: simplexml_load_file_from_url

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 1034
Function: getPubMedXML

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 3152
Function: GetPubMedArticleOutput_2016

File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 575
Function: pubMedSearch_Global

File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 489
Function: pubMedGetRelatedKeyword

File: /var/www/html/index.php
Line: 316
Function: require_once

Pre- and post-set hydrophilicity of elastomeric impression materials. | LitMetric

Pre- and post-set hydrophilicity of elastomeric impression materials.

J Prosthodont

Division of Graduate and Postgraduate Prosthodontics, Tufts University, School of Dental Medicine, Boston, MA, USA.

Published: September 2007

Purpose: To evaluate the hydrophilicity of one polyether, four poly(vinyl siloxanes), and one condensation silicone before and after setting under simulated clinical conditions, and to correlate the findings to the contact angle values of these materials.

Materials And Methods: The hydrophilicity before and after setting, as well as the contact angle values of the elastomeric impression materials were evaluated. Part I: A freshly extracted tooth, which was prepared for a full coverage restoration, was kept in saliva for 15 minutes and was then rinsed for 10 seconds. Impressions were taken without any drying of the tooth. A total of ten samples were taken for each material. The specimens were evaluated at a 10x magnification for defects. Part II: After the evaluation, the impressions were poured with a type IV dental stone and were left for 1 hour before separation. The stone specimens were then evaluated at a 10x magnification for negative voids. A total of 60 specimens were tested. Part III: Sixty identical 10 x 10 x 4 mm(2) plastic molds were used for the fabrication of the impression material specimens. Contact angle measurements of each specimen were made 1 hour after separation from the plastic mold. A calibrated pipette was used to place a drop (0.05 ml) of saturated calcium sulfate dehydrate onto each specimen. Digital images were taken for each specimen, and contact angle values were measured with appropriate software.

Results: Part I: One-way ANOVA revealed significant differences among the materials (F = 15.526, p < 0.0005). Polyether had the fewest voids. The poly(vinyl siloxanes) did not present any significant differences among them, according to Tukey's HSD test (p < 0.05). Part II: One-way ANOVA revealed significant differences among the materials (F = 46.164, p < 0.0005). Polyether (Impregum) was the material which produced stone specimens with the fewest voids. Part III: One-way ANOVA indicated significant differences among the elastomeric impression materials (F = 494.918, p < 0.0005). Polyether displayed the smallest contact angle values.

Conclusions: Polyether was the most hydrophilic of all materials tested.

Download full-text PDF

Source
http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1532-849X.2007.00205.xDOI Listing

Publication Analysis

Top Keywords

contact angle
20
elastomeric impression
12
impression materials
12
angle values
12
one-way anova
12
00005 polyether
12
polyvinyl siloxanes
8
material specimens
8
specimens evaluated
8
evaluated 10x
8

Similar Publications

Want AI Summaries of new PubMed Abstracts delivered to your In-box?

Enter search terms and have AI summaries delivered each week - change queries or unsubscribe any time!