Research ExplorerPublicationsHandling of Polyvinylsiloxane Versus Polyether for Implant I...

Handling of Polyvinylsiloxane Versus Polyether for Implant Impressions

Standard

Handling of Polyvinylsiloxane Versus Polyether for Implant Impressions. / Farhan, Daniel; Lauer, Wiebke; Heydecke, Guido; Aarabi, Ghazal; Reissmann, Daniel R.

In: INT J PROSTHODONT, Vol. 29, No. 4, 08.2016, p. 403-5.

Research output: SCORING: Contribution to journal › SCORING: Journal article › Research › peer-review

Harvard

Farhan, D, Lauer, W, Heydecke, G, Aarabi, G & Reissmann, DR 2016, 'Handling of Polyvinylsiloxane Versus Polyether for Implant Impressions', INT J PROSTHODONT, vol. 29, no. 4, pp. 403-5.

APA

Farhan, D., Lauer, W., Heydecke, G., Aarabi, G., & Reissmann, D. R. (2016). Handling of Polyvinylsiloxane Versus Polyether for Implant Impressions. INT J PROSTHODONT, 29(4), 403-5.

Vancouver

Farhan D, Lauer W, Heydecke G, Aarabi G, Reissmann DR. Handling of Polyvinylsiloxane Versus Polyether for Implant Impressions. INT J PROSTHODONT. 2016 Aug;29(4):403-5.

Bibtex

@article{03019a29663947b7a23b4660537681a0,
title = "Handling of Polyvinylsiloxane Versus Polyether for Implant Impressions",
abstract = "PURPOSE: This study compared polyvinylsiloxane with polyether in handling dental impressions.MATERIALS AND METHODS: Each participant (N = 39) made four impressions, each a combination of pickup and reseating techniques with polyether or polyvinylsiloxane, of one implant cast representing a specific clinical situation (tooth gaps, limited residual dentition, or edentulous jaw). Handling of impressions was subsequently rated by using a 12-item questionnaire with 100-mm visual analog scales.RESULTS: While mean satisfaction scores were higher for polyvinylsiloxane than for polyether (69.5/63.0, P < .001), differences among subgroups were statistically significant only for pickup technique, limited residual dentition, and edentulous jaw.CONCLUSION: Implant impressions made with polyvinylsiloxane using a pickup technique seem to be the best option for most clinical situations.",
author = "Daniel Farhan and Wiebke Lauer and Guido Heydecke and Ghazal Aarabi and Reissmann, {Daniel R}",
year = "2016",
month = aug,
language = "English",
volume = "29",
pages = "403--5",
journal = "INT J PROSTHODONT",
issn = "0893-2174",
publisher = "Quintessence Publishing Company",
number = "4",

}

RIS

TY - JOUR

T1 - Handling of Polyvinylsiloxane Versus Polyether for Implant Impressions

AU - Farhan, Daniel

AU - Lauer, Wiebke

AU - Heydecke, Guido

AU - Aarabi, Ghazal

AU - Reissmann, Daniel R

PY - 2016/8

Y1 - 2016/8

N2 - PURPOSE: This study compared polyvinylsiloxane with polyether in handling dental impressions.MATERIALS AND METHODS: Each participant (N = 39) made four impressions, each a combination of pickup and reseating techniques with polyether or polyvinylsiloxane, of one implant cast representing a specific clinical situation (tooth gaps, limited residual dentition, or edentulous jaw). Handling of impressions was subsequently rated by using a 12-item questionnaire with 100-mm visual analog scales.RESULTS: While mean satisfaction scores were higher for polyvinylsiloxane than for polyether (69.5/63.0, P < .001), differences among subgroups were statistically significant only for pickup technique, limited residual dentition, and edentulous jaw.CONCLUSION: Implant impressions made with polyvinylsiloxane using a pickup technique seem to be the best option for most clinical situations.

AB - PURPOSE: This study compared polyvinylsiloxane with polyether in handling dental impressions.MATERIALS AND METHODS: Each participant (N = 39) made four impressions, each a combination of pickup and reseating techniques with polyether or polyvinylsiloxane, of one implant cast representing a specific clinical situation (tooth gaps, limited residual dentition, or edentulous jaw). Handling of impressions was subsequently rated by using a 12-item questionnaire with 100-mm visual analog scales.RESULTS: While mean satisfaction scores were higher for polyvinylsiloxane than for polyether (69.5/63.0, P < .001), differences among subgroups were statistically significant only for pickup technique, limited residual dentition, and edentulous jaw.CONCLUSION: Implant impressions made with polyvinylsiloxane using a pickup technique seem to be the best option for most clinical situations.

M3 - SCORING: Journal article

C2 - 27479351

VL - 29

SP - 403

EP - 405

JO - INT J PROSTHODONT

JF - INT J PROSTHODONT

SN - 0893-2174

IS - 4

ER -