http://chineseinput.net/에서 pinyin(병음)방식으로 중국어를 변환할 수 있습니다.
변환된 중국어를 복사하여 사용하시면 됩니다.
- 中文 을 입력하시려면 zhongwen을 입력하시고 space를누르시면됩니다.
- 北京 을 입력하시려면 beijing을 입력하시고 space를 누르시면 됩니다.
RISS 인기검색어
- 검색키워드
- 저자 : Pastoret, Marie-Helene (검색결과 2 건)
- 무료
- 기관 내 무료
- 유료
-
Pastoret, Marie-Helene,Krastl, Gabriel,Buhler, Julia,Weiger, Roland,Zitzmann, Nicola Ursula The Korean Academy of Prosthodonitics 2017 The Journal of Advanced Prosthodontics Vol.9 No.4
PURPOSE. To compare the dimensional accuracy of three impression techniques- a separating foil impression, a custom tray impression, and a stock tray impression. MATERIALS AND METHODS. A machined mandibular complete-arch metal model with special modifications served as a master cast. Three different impression techniques (n = 6 in each group) were performed with addition-cured silicon materials: i) putty-wash technique with a prefabricated metal tray (MET) using putty and regular body, ii) single-phase impression with custom tray (CUS) using regular body material, and iii) two-stage technique with stock metal tray (SEP) using putty with a separating foil and regular body material. All impressions were poured with epoxy resin. Six different distances (four intra-abutment and two inter-abutment distances) were gauged on the metal master model and on the casts with a microscope in combination with calibrated measuring software. The differences of the evaluated distances between the reference and the three test groups were calculated and expressed as mean (${\pm}SD$). Additionally, the 95% confidence intervals were calculated and significant differences between the experimental groups were assumed when confidence intervals did not overlap. RESULTS. Dimensional changes compared to reference values varied between -74.01 and $32.57{\mu}m$ (MET), -78.86 and 30.84 (CUS), and between -92.20 and 30.98 (SEP). For the intra-abutment distances, no significant differences among the experimental groups were detected. CUS showed a significantly higher dimensional accuracy for the inter-abutment distances with -0.02 and -0.08 percentage deviation compared to MET and SEP. CONCLUSION. The separation foil technique is a simple alternative to the custom tray technique for single tooth restorations, while limitations may exist for extended restorations with multiple abutment teeth.
-
Marie-Hélène Pastoret,Gabriel Krastl,Julia Bühler,Roland Weiger,Nicola Ursula Zitzmann 대한치과보철학회 2017 The Journal of Advanced Prosthodontics Vol.9 No.4
PURPOSE. To compare the dimensional accuracy of three impression techniques- a separating foil impression, a custom tray impression, and a stock tray impression. MATERIALS AND METHODS. A machined mandibular complete-arch metal model with special modifications served as a master cast. Three different impression techniques (n = 6 in each group) were performed with addition-cured silicon materials: i) putty-wash technique with a prefabricated metal tray (MET) using putty and regular body, ii) single-phase impression with custom tray (CUS) using regular body material, and iii) two-stage technique with stock metal tray (SEP) using putty with a separating foil and regular body material. All impressions were poured with epoxy resin. Six different distances (four intra-abutment and two inter-abutment distances) were gauged on the metal master model and on the casts with a microscope in combination with calibrated measuring software. The differences of the evaluated distances between the reference and the three test groups were calculated and expressed as mean (± SD). Additionally, the 95% confidence intervals were calculated and significant differences between the experimental groups were assumed when confidence intervals did not overlap. RESULTS. Dimensional changes compared to reference values varied between -74.01 and 32.57 탆 (MET), -78.86 and 30.84 (CUS), and between -92.20 and 30.98 (SEP). For the intra-abutment distances, no significant differences among the experimental groups were detected. CUS showed a significantly higher dimensional accuracy for the inter-abutment distances with -0.02 and –0.08 percentage deviation compared to MET and SEP. CONCLUSION. The separation foil technique is a simple alternative to the custom tray technique for single tooth restorations, while limitations may exist for extended restorations with multiple abutment teeth
연관 검색어 추천
이 검색어로 많이 본 자료
활용도 높은 자료
