We are using cookies to implement functions like login, shopping cart or language selection for this website. Furthermore we use Google Analytics to create anonymized statistical reports of the usage which creates Cookies too. You will find more information in our privacy policy.
OK, I agree I do not want Google Analytics-Cookies
International Journal of Esthetic Dentistry  (English Edition)
Login:
username:

password:

Plattform:

Forgotten password?

Registration

Dear readers,

our online journals are moving. The new (and old) issues of all journals can be found at
www.quintessence-publishing.com
In most cases you can log in there directly with your e-mail address and your current password. Otherwise we ask you to register again. Thank you very much.

Your Quintessence Publishing House
Int J Esthet Dent 15 (2020), No. 3     11. Aug. 2020
Int J Esthet Dent 15 (2020), No. 3  (11.08.2020)

Page 344-354, PubMed:32760928


Comparative analysis of elastomeric die materials for semidirect composite restorations
de Abreu, Joao Luiz / Katz, Steven / Sbardelotto, Cristian / Mijares, Dindo / Witek, Lukasz / Coelho, Paulo G / Hirata, Ronaldo
Aim: Die silicone materials are used to build chairside composite restorations. The purpose of this study was to compare the flowability, dimension accuracy, and tear strength of four elastomeric die materials.
Material and methods: Materials were divided into four groups: Mach-2 (M2), Scan Die (SD), GrandioSO Inlay System (GIS), and Impregum-F (IM). Flowability analysis was carried out using the shark fin test (SFT). For dimension accuracy, impressions were taken from a premolar Class I preparation and an elastomeric model was cast. Composite resin restorations were built and positioned into the premolar for gap measurement. The mean gap length was divided into three levels: acceptable (A), not acceptable (NA), and misfit (M). For tear strength, strip specimens were made with a V-shaped notch (n = 6). The specimens were tested in a universal machine until tear. All data were analyzed statistically with a confidence interval of 95%.
Results: GIS showed the lowest flowability values, with no differences between IM, M2, and SD. For dimension accuracy, IM showed 100% 'A' gap values, followed by M2 (80%), SD (60%), and GIS (60%). For tear strength, IM showed the highest values, followed by M2, GIS, and SD.
Conclusions: M2, SD, and IM had similar flowability, while GIS had the lowest. IM presented higher tear strength than M2, followed by GIS and SD. IM showed the highest degrees of acceptable gap filling, followed by M2.
fulltext (no access granted) Endnote-Export