No abstract

Evaluation of a mixture’s moisture sensitivity is currently the final step in the Superpave® volumetric process. This step is accomplished by using AASHTO T-283, which tolerates a range of values in the test variables of sample air voids and degree of saturation. The tensile strength ratios determined for the mixes in this study varied with the air void level and degree of saturation. Although the levels of conditioning were within the specifications for AASHTO T-283, test results both passed and failed the 80 percent criterion, depending on the severity of conditioning. An alternative to measuring indirect tensile strength is a test that evaluates a mixture’s fundamental material properties. A relatively simple test is proposed that measures the cohesion and friction angle for asphalt mixtures. In addition, the Superpave shear tester (SST) was incorporated as a tool in evaluating moisture sensitivity. The proposed axial test determined the cohesion and angle of friction of the mix. The friction angle remained constant for the conditioned and unconditioned samples. Hence, conditioning of the samples had practically no effect on the mixture’s internal friction. The cohesion of the mix decreased when the mix was subjected to conditioning. The reduction in cohesion was greater in the case of the Fountain aggregate, which is known to be highly moisture susceptible. The shear tests to failure performed on the SST confirmed the results of the new apparatus, which provides a simple method for determining a mixture’s cohesion. The loss of cohesion due to conditioning can be used to determine a mixture’s moisture susceptibility. The three antistrip additives used in this study were hydrated lime, a liquid amine, and a liquid phosphate ester.

Focused Clinical Question For a generally healthy patient with no risk indicators for postoperative infection, what is the most appropriate perioperative antibiotic regimen for sinus elevation surgery in terms of reducing postoperative infection risk and minimizing untoward effects? Clinical Scenario A 38‐year‐old female patient in good general and periodontal health presents missing tooth #14 (Fig. ). She reports no systemic conditions, no history of sinusitis, and no allergies. Medications include acetaminophen and ibuprofen as needed for pain. The patient's dentition is minimally restored, with no active caries. Cone‐beam computed tomography reveals a clear, pneumatized left maxillary sinus and inadequate bone volume to support dental implant placement (Fig. ). No septa or pathologic lesions are present, the ostium appears patent, and no thickening of the Schneiderian membrane is appreciable. The patient states that she wants to replace her missing molar without restoring adjacent teeth (Figs. and ). Baseline clinical appearance (example sinus elevation case). The patient is a healthy 38‐year‐old female missing tooth #14. Inadequate bone volume is present for dental implant placement due to pneumatization of the left maxillary sinus. Preoperative cone‐beam computed tomography images. 2a Sagittal view. 2b Coronal view. Cone‐beam computed tomography images at postoperative month 6. 3a Sagittal view. 3b Coronal view. Definitive implant‐supported restoration, tooth #14.

No abstract

No abstract

No abstract

No abstract