Wastage of a silicone impression material in a general practice setting: a comparison between hand and automixing methods.
A practice-based, randomised, controlled trial has been undertaken to investigate the wastage of impression material when recording full arch one-stage, polyvinyl siloxane impressions using four techniques: putty and automix light viscosity material, putty and automix regular viscosity material, putty and tubed light viscosity material, and putty and tubed regular viscosity material. A total of 100 maxillary impressions, comprising 25 recorded using each of the four techniques, were obtained according to a predetermined scheme for randomisation. All material wasted in dispensing, mixing and applying each impression was determined by repeated weighing. Statistical comparisons of the mean weights of material wasted for each type of impression revealed that significantly (P < 0.01) less wastage occurred with the automix techniques. It is concluded that automix impression techniques may, in more extensive studies, be found to be more cost effective than tubed impression material techniques when recording impressions of the type investigated.
Wilson
N H
NH
Department of Restorative Dentistry, University Dental Hospital of Manchester, Manchester, UK. Nairn.H.F.Wilson@man.ac.uk
Cowan
A J
AJ
Crisp
R J
RJ
Wilson
M A
MA
D003362:Cost-Benefit Analysis; D003760:Dental Impression Materials / Q000191:economics; D003761:Dental Impression Technique / Q000191:economics; D018057:Dental Waste / Q000191:economics*; D006801:Humans; D011145:Polyvinyls / Q000191:economics; D012833:Siloxanes / Q000191:economics; D013674:Technology, Dental / Q000191:economics / Q000379:methods*; D014783:Viscosity
D003760:Dental Impression Materials; D018057:Dental Waste; D011145:Polyvinyls; D012833:Siloxanes; C034183:vinyl polysiloxane