A clinical comparison of cordless and conventional displacement systems regarding clinical performance and impression quality

Acar, Ozlem; Erkut, Selim; Özçelik, Tuncer Burak; Özdemir, Erdem; Akçil, Mehtap

doi:10.1016/j.prosdent.2013.08.009

Cited by 36 publications

(37 citation statements)

References 12 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Gingival retraction materials are used to expose the marginal line of the prepared tooth to allow the impression material to freely flow into the sulcus . Furthermore, cordless retraction materials have been introduced and are claimed to have superior efficiency, better patient comfort and acceptance, and less damage to the periodontium compared to traditional retraction cords . Expasyl (Kerr Co., Orange, CA) is a cordless injectable paste‐like material commonly used for this purpose .…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Effects of Gingival Retraction Paste and Subsequent Cleaning with Hydrogen Peroxide on the Polymerization of Three Elastomeric Impression Materials: An In Vitro Study

Abduljabbar

Amri

Rifaiy

et al. 2017

Journal of Prosthodontics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Effects of Gingival Retraction Paste and Subsequent Cleaning with Hydrogen Peroxide on the Polymerization of Three Elastomeric Impression Materials: An In Vitro Study

Abduljabbar

Amri

Rifaiy

et al. 2017

Journal of Prosthodontics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Mevcut çalışmada, yöntemlerin klinik performansını değerlendirmek için horizontal yönde yer değiştirme etkinliği, retraksiyon sonrası kanama görü-len diş sayısı ve toplam ölçü süreleri esas alınmıştır. Yöntemin sulkustaki yer değiştirme etkinliği, araştır-macı tarafından kord ya da pasta sulkustan uzaklaş-tırıldıktan sonra kolay görülebilir ve ulaşılabilir olduğu için dişlerin bukkal yüzeylerinden subjektif olarak VAS kullanılarak değerlendirilmiştir 21,22 . Dişeti oluğu sıvısı ve kanama kontrol edilerek kuru bir ortam oluşturulması ölçünün kalitesini etkilemektedir 23,24 .…”

Section: Discussionunclassified

“…Bu sebeple çalışmada kordlar çıkartılmadan nemlendirilmiş ve çıkartıldıktan hemen sonra da solüsyon artıklarını ve varsa kanamayı uzaklaştırmak amacıyla uygulama bölgeleri 10 sn hava su spreyi ile yıkanmış ve kurutulmuştur. Mevcut çalışmada, retraksiyon sonrası kanamanın en fazla geleneksel kord grubunda gözlenmesi önceki çalış-maları desteklemektedir 21,25 . Araştırmacılar; kanamasız, kuru bir sulkus elde edebilmek için mekanik ve kimyasal yöntemin kombine edilmesi gerektiğini vurgulamışlardır 3,8 .…”

Section: Discussionunclassified

3 Farkli Di̇şeti̇ Retraksi̇yon Yöntemi̇ni̇n Hasta Konforu Açisindan Karşilaştirilmasi: Pi̇lot Çalişma

EKREN¹,

ÇERÇİ²

2016

Atatürk Üniversitesi Diş Hekimliği Fakültesi Dergisi

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…17 Careful soft tissue management, both prior to and during tooth preparation, can improve outcomes. 6, 18 …”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Impression evaluation and laboratory use for single-unit crowns

McCracken¹,

Litaker²,

George³

et al. 2017

The Journal of the American Dental Association

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background Objectives were to: (1) determine the likelihood that a clinician accepts an impression for a single-unit crown; and (2) document crown remake rates. Methods A questionnaire was developed that asked dentists about techniques used to fabricate single-unit crowns. Dentists were shown photographs of 4 impressions and were asked to accept or reject the impression. Answers were correlated with dentist and practice characteristics. Other questions pertained to laboratory usage and crown remake rates. Results Response rate was 83% (1,777 of 2,132 eligible dentists). Of the impressions evaluated, 3 received consistent responses, with 85% agreement. One impression was more equivocal; 47% accepted the impression. The likelihood of accepting an impression was significantly associated with the clinician’s sex, race, ethnicity, and practice busyness. Clinicians produce 18 crowns per month on average, and 9% used in-office milling. Most (59%) reported a remake rate of less than 2%, while 17% reported a remake rate >4%. Lower remake rates were significantly associated with more-experienced clinicians, optical impressions, and not using dual-arch trays. Conclusions While dentists were largely consistent in their evaluation of impressions (greater than 85%), non-clinical factors were associated with whether an impression was accepted or rejected. Lower crown remake rates were associated with more-experienced clinicians, optical impressions, and not using dual-arch trays. Practical Implications These results provide a snapshot of clinical care considerations among a diverse group of dentists. Clinicians can compare their own remake rates and impression evaluation techniques to this sample when developing best practice protocols.

show abstract

A clinical comparison of cordless and conventional displacement systems regarding clinical performance and impression quality

Cited by 36 publications

References 12 publications

Effects of Gingival Retraction Paste and Subsequent Cleaning with Hydrogen Peroxide on the Polymerization of Three Elastomeric Impression Materials: An In Vitro Study

Effects of Gingival Retraction Paste and Subsequent Cleaning with Hydrogen Peroxide on the Polymerization of Three Elastomeric Impression Materials: An In Vitro Study

3 Farkli Di̇şeti̇ Retraksi̇yon Yöntemi̇ni̇n Hasta Konforu Açisindan Karşilaştirilmasi: Pi̇lot Çalişma

Impression evaluation and laboratory use for single-unit crowns

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About