A. Patel, Ramandeep Dugal, Pallavi Madanshetty, A. Godil, A. Kazi, A. Kirad
{"title":"三种不同临时修复材料的边际拟合评价-体外研究","authors":"A. Patel, Ramandeep Dugal, Pallavi Madanshetty, A. Godil, A. Kazi, A. Kirad","doi":"10.22038/JDMT.2020.48345.1370","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Introduction: The aim of this experimental in-vitro study was to evaluate and compare marginal accuracy of interim restorations made with three chemically different interim materials one hour after fabrication and at one week interval. Methods: Twenty samples from each group with a total of sixty were fabricated on a customized metal die. The three test groups were as below; Group A - Protemp TM 4 (3M ESPE AG Dental Products, Germany), a bis-acrylic based self-cure temporary material; Group B - Revotek LCTM (GC Dental Products Corp., Japan), a urethane dimethacrylate based light cure temporary material and Group C - Tuff-Temp™ Plus (Pulpdent Corporation, U.S.A), a rubberized-urethane based dual cure temporary material. All samples were stored in artificial saliva and evaluated for marginal discrepancy using a stereomicroscope, one hour and one week after fabrication. Statistical analysis was done using one way ANOVA test and Tukeys Post-hoc tests. Results: Statistical significant difference existed between three groups after one hour (p <0.001) and after one week (p <0.001), Tuff-Temp™ Plus showed the least marginal discrepancy (at one hour =192.3± 0.75µm; at one week = 242.69 ± 5.64µm), while Revotek LCTM (at one hour = 232.52± 0.48µm; at one week = 293.68 ± 3.75µm) had the highest discrepancy. Conclusions: Tuff-Temp™ Plus showed higher marginal accuracy followed Protemp TM 4 and Revotek LCTM at one hour and one week interval.","PeriodicalId":15640,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Dental Materials and Techniques","volume":"36 1","pages":"161-170"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2020-09-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Evaluation of Marginal Fit of Three Different Interim Restoration Materials - An In-vitro Study\",\"authors\":\"A. Patel, Ramandeep Dugal, Pallavi Madanshetty, A. Godil, A. Kazi, A. Kirad\",\"doi\":\"10.22038/JDMT.2020.48345.1370\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Introduction: The aim of this experimental in-vitro study was to evaluate and compare marginal accuracy of interim restorations made with three chemically different interim materials one hour after fabrication and at one week interval. Methods: Twenty samples from each group with a total of sixty were fabricated on a customized metal die. The three test groups were as below; Group A - Protemp TM 4 (3M ESPE AG Dental Products, Germany), a bis-acrylic based self-cure temporary material; Group B - Revotek LCTM (GC Dental Products Corp., Japan), a urethane dimethacrylate based light cure temporary material and Group C - Tuff-Temp™ Plus (Pulpdent Corporation, U.S.A), a rubberized-urethane based dual cure temporary material. All samples were stored in artificial saliva and evaluated for marginal discrepancy using a stereomicroscope, one hour and one week after fabrication. Statistical analysis was done using one way ANOVA test and Tukeys Post-hoc tests. Results: Statistical significant difference existed between three groups after one hour (p <0.001) and after one week (p <0.001), Tuff-Temp™ Plus showed the least marginal discrepancy (at one hour =192.3± 0.75µm; at one week = 242.69 ± 5.64µm), while Revotek LCTM (at one hour = 232.52± 0.48µm; at one week = 293.68 ± 3.75µm) had the highest discrepancy. Conclusions: Tuff-Temp™ Plus showed higher marginal accuracy followed Protemp TM 4 and Revotek LCTM at one hour and one week interval.\",\"PeriodicalId\":15640,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Dental Materials and Techniques\",\"volume\":\"36 1\",\"pages\":\"161-170\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2020-09-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Dental Materials and Techniques\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.22038/JDMT.2020.48345.1370\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Dental Materials and Techniques","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.22038/JDMT.2020.48345.1370","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
Evaluation of Marginal Fit of Three Different Interim Restoration Materials - An In-vitro Study
Introduction: The aim of this experimental in-vitro study was to evaluate and compare marginal accuracy of interim restorations made with three chemically different interim materials one hour after fabrication and at one week interval. Methods: Twenty samples from each group with a total of sixty were fabricated on a customized metal die. The three test groups were as below; Group A - Protemp TM 4 (3M ESPE AG Dental Products, Germany), a bis-acrylic based self-cure temporary material; Group B - Revotek LCTM (GC Dental Products Corp., Japan), a urethane dimethacrylate based light cure temporary material and Group C - Tuff-Temp™ Plus (Pulpdent Corporation, U.S.A), a rubberized-urethane based dual cure temporary material. All samples were stored in artificial saliva and evaluated for marginal discrepancy using a stereomicroscope, one hour and one week after fabrication. Statistical analysis was done using one way ANOVA test and Tukeys Post-hoc tests. Results: Statistical significant difference existed between three groups after one hour (p <0.001) and after one week (p <0.001), Tuff-Temp™ Plus showed the least marginal discrepancy (at one hour =192.3± 0.75µm; at one week = 242.69 ± 5.64µm), while Revotek LCTM (at one hour = 232.52± 0.48µm; at one week = 293.68 ± 3.75µm) had the highest discrepancy. Conclusions: Tuff-Temp™ Plus showed higher marginal accuracy followed Protemp TM 4 and Revotek LCTM at one hour and one week interval.