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 w...
Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:

Autor*in:	Ahmed Patel [verfasserIn] Ramandeep Dugal [verfasserIn] Pallavi Madanshetty [verfasserIn] Aamir Godil [verfasserIn] Arshi Kazi [verfasserIn] Ajinkya Kirad [verfasserIn]

Format:	E-Artikel
Sprache:	Englisch

Erschienen:	2020

Schlagwörter:	marginal accuracy provisional restoration interim crown

Übergeordnetes Werk:	In: Journal of Dental Materials and Techniques - Mashhad University of Medical Sciences, 2013, 9(2020), 3, Seite 161-170
Übergeordnetes Werk:	volume:9 ; year:2020 ; number:3 ; pages:161-170

Links:	Link aufrufen Link aufrufen Link aufrufen Journal toc Journal toc

DOI / URN:	10.22038/jdmt.2020.48345.1370

Katalog-ID:	DOAJ074297201

Internformat


LEADER	01000caa a22002652 4500
001	DOAJ074297201
003	DE-627
005	20230309123448.0
007	cr uuu---uuuuu
008	230228s2020 xx \|\|\|\|\|o 00\| \|\|eng c
024	7		\|a 10.22038/jdmt.2020.48345.1370 \|2 doi
035			\|a (DE-627)DOAJ074297201
035			\|a (DE-599)DOAJfd5357b67ac445809560d8f5924bd637
040			\|a DE-627 \|b ger \|c DE-627 \|e rakwb
041			\|a eng
050		0	\|a RK1-715
100	0		\|a Ahmed Patel \|e verfasserin \|4 aut
245	1	0	\|a Evaluation of Marginal Fit of Three Different Interim Restoration Materials - An In-vitro Study
264		1	\|c 2020
336			\|a Text \|b txt \|2 rdacontent
337			\|a Computermedien \|b c \|2 rdamedia
338			\|a Online-Ressource \|b cr \|2 rdacarrier
520			\|a 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.
650		4	\|a marginal accuracy
650		4	\|a provisional restoration
650		4	\|a interim crown
653		0	\|a Dentistry
700	0		\|a Ramandeep Dugal \|e verfasserin \|4 aut
700	0		\|a Pallavi Madanshetty \|e verfasserin \|4 aut
700	0		\|a Aamir Godil \|e verfasserin \|4 aut
700	0		\|a Arshi Kazi \|e verfasserin \|4 aut
700	0		\|a Ajinkya Kirad \|e verfasserin \|4 aut
773	0	8	\|i In \|t Journal of Dental Materials and Techniques \|d Mashhad University of Medical Sciences, 2013 \|g 9(2020), 3, Seite 161-170 \|w (DE-627)74713782X \|w (DE-600)2716877-3 \|x 22520317 \|7 nnns
773	1	8	\|g volume:9 \|g year:2020 \|g number:3 \|g pages:161-170
856	4	0	\|u https://doi.org/10.22038/jdmt.2020.48345.1370 \|z kostenfrei
856	4	0	\|u https://doaj.org/article/fd5357b67ac445809560d8f5924bd637 \|z kostenfrei
856	4	0	\|u http://jdmt.mums.ac.ir/article_16513_3e9943d0c07498d2ee9d6a40529cb96d.pdf \|z kostenfrei
856	4	2	\|u https://doaj.org/toc/2322-4150 \|y Journal toc \|z kostenfrei
856	4	2	\|u https://doaj.org/toc/2252-0317 \|y Journal toc \|z kostenfrei
912			\|a GBV_USEFLAG_A
912			\|a SYSFLAG_A
912			\|a GBV_DOAJ
912			\|a GBV_ILN_20
912			\|a GBV_ILN_22
912			\|a GBV_ILN_23
912			\|a GBV_ILN_24
912			\|a GBV_ILN_31
912			\|a GBV_ILN_39
912			\|a GBV_ILN_40
912			\|a GBV_ILN_60
912			\|a GBV_ILN_62
912			\|a GBV_ILN_63
912			\|a GBV_ILN_65
912			\|a GBV_ILN_69
912			\|a GBV_ILN_73
912			\|a GBV_ILN_74
912			\|a GBV_ILN_95
912			\|a GBV_ILN_105
912			\|a GBV_ILN_110
912			\|a GBV_ILN_151
912			\|a GBV_ILN_161
912			\|a GBV_ILN_170
912			\|a GBV_ILN_206
912			\|a GBV_ILN_213
912			\|a GBV_ILN_230
912			\|a GBV_ILN_285
912			\|a GBV_ILN_293
912			\|a GBV_ILN_602
912			\|a GBV_ILN_2014
912			\|a GBV_ILN_4012
912			\|a GBV_ILN_4037
912			\|a GBV_ILN_4112
912			\|a GBV_ILN_4125
912			\|a GBV_ILN_4126
912			\|a GBV_ILN_4249
912			\|a GBV_ILN_4305
912			\|a GBV_ILN_4306
912			\|a GBV_ILN_4307
912			\|a GBV_ILN_4313
912			\|a GBV_ILN_4322
912			\|a GBV_ILN_4323
912			\|a GBV_ILN_4324
912			\|a GBV_ILN_4325
912			\|a GBV_ILN_4338
912			\|a GBV_ILN_4367
912			\|a GBV_ILN_4700
951			\|a AR
952			\|d 9 \|j 2020 \|e 3 \|h 161-170

Indexfelder

author_variant	a p ap r d rd p m pm a g ag a k ak a k ak
matchkey_str	article:22520317:2020----::vlainfagnliotreifrnitrmetrtomt
hierarchy_sort_str	2020
callnumber-subject-code	RK
publishDate	2020
allfields	10.22038/jdmt.2020.48345.1370 doi (DE-627)DOAJ074297201 (DE-599)DOAJfd5357b67ac445809560d8f5924bd637 DE-627 ger DE-627 rakwb eng RK1-715 Ahmed Patel verfasserin aut Evaluation of Marginal Fit of Three Different Interim Restoration Materials - An In-vitro Study 2020 Text txt rdacontent Computermedien c rdamedia Online-Ressource cr rdacarrier 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. marginal accuracy provisional restoration interim crown Dentistry Ramandeep Dugal verfasserin aut Pallavi Madanshetty verfasserin aut Aamir Godil verfasserin aut Arshi Kazi verfasserin aut Ajinkya Kirad verfasserin aut In Journal of Dental Materials and Techniques Mashhad University of Medical Sciences, 2013 9(2020), 3, Seite 161-170 (DE-627)74713782X (DE-600)2716877-3 22520317 nnns volume:9 year:2020 number:3 pages:161-170 https://doi.org/10.22038/jdmt.2020.48345.1370 kostenfrei https://doaj.org/article/fd5357b67ac445809560d8f5924bd637 kostenfrei http://jdmt.mums.ac.ir/article_16513_3e9943d0c07498d2ee9d6a40529cb96d.pdf kostenfrei https://doaj.org/toc/2322-4150 Journal toc kostenfrei https://doaj.org/toc/2252-0317 Journal toc kostenfrei GBV_USEFLAG_A SYSFLAG_A GBV_DOAJ GBV_ILN_20 GBV_ILN_22 GBV_ILN_23 GBV_ILN_24 GBV_ILN_31 GBV_ILN_39 GBV_ILN_40 GBV_ILN_60 GBV_ILN_62 GBV_ILN_63 GBV_ILN_65 GBV_ILN_69 GBV_ILN_73 GBV_ILN_74 GBV_ILN_95 GBV_ILN_105 GBV_ILN_110 GBV_ILN_151 GBV_ILN_161 GBV_ILN_170 GBV_ILN_206 GBV_ILN_213 GBV_ILN_230 GBV_ILN_285 GBV_ILN_293 GBV_ILN_602 GBV_ILN_2014 GBV_ILN_4012 GBV_ILN_4037 GBV_ILN_4112 GBV_ILN_4125 GBV_ILN_4126 GBV_ILN_4249 GBV_ILN_4305 GBV_ILN_4306 GBV_ILN_4307 GBV_ILN_4313 GBV_ILN_4322 GBV_ILN_4323 GBV_ILN_4324 GBV_ILN_4325 GBV_ILN_4338 GBV_ILN_4367 GBV_ILN_4700 AR 9 2020 3 161-170
spelling	10.22038/jdmt.2020.48345.1370 doi (DE-627)DOAJ074297201 (DE-599)DOAJfd5357b67ac445809560d8f5924bd637 DE-627 ger DE-627 rakwb eng RK1-715 Ahmed Patel verfasserin aut Evaluation of Marginal Fit of Three Different Interim Restoration Materials - An In-vitro Study 2020 Text txt rdacontent Computermedien c rdamedia Online-Ressource cr rdacarrier 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. marginal accuracy provisional restoration interim crown Dentistry Ramandeep Dugal verfasserin aut Pallavi Madanshetty verfasserin aut Aamir Godil verfasserin aut Arshi Kazi verfasserin aut Ajinkya Kirad verfasserin aut In Journal of Dental Materials and Techniques Mashhad University of Medical Sciences, 2013 9(2020), 3, Seite 161-170 (DE-627)74713782X (DE-600)2716877-3 22520317 nnns volume:9 year:2020 number:3 pages:161-170 https://doi.org/10.22038/jdmt.2020.48345.1370 kostenfrei https://doaj.org/article/fd5357b67ac445809560d8f5924bd637 kostenfrei http://jdmt.mums.ac.ir/article_16513_3e9943d0c07498d2ee9d6a40529cb96d.pdf kostenfrei https://doaj.org/toc/2322-4150 Journal toc kostenfrei https://doaj.org/toc/2252-0317 Journal toc kostenfrei GBV_USEFLAG_A SYSFLAG_A GBV_DOAJ GBV_ILN_20 GBV_ILN_22 GBV_ILN_23 GBV_ILN_24 GBV_ILN_31 GBV_ILN_39 GBV_ILN_40 GBV_ILN_60 GBV_ILN_62 GBV_ILN_63 GBV_ILN_65 GBV_ILN_69 GBV_ILN_73 GBV_ILN_74 GBV_ILN_95 GBV_ILN_105 GBV_ILN_110 GBV_ILN_151 GBV_ILN_161 GBV_ILN_170 GBV_ILN_206 GBV_ILN_213 GBV_ILN_230 GBV_ILN_285 GBV_ILN_293 GBV_ILN_602 GBV_ILN_2014 GBV_ILN_4012 GBV_ILN_4037 GBV_ILN_4112 GBV_ILN_4125 GBV_ILN_4126 GBV_ILN_4249 GBV_ILN_4305 GBV_ILN_4306 GBV_ILN_4307 GBV_ILN_4313 GBV_ILN_4322 GBV_ILN_4323 GBV_ILN_4324 GBV_ILN_4325 GBV_ILN_4338 GBV_ILN_4367 GBV_ILN_4700 AR 9 2020 3 161-170
allfields_unstemmed	10.22038/jdmt.2020.48345.1370 doi (DE-627)DOAJ074297201 (DE-599)DOAJfd5357b67ac445809560d8f5924bd637 DE-627 ger DE-627 rakwb eng RK1-715 Ahmed Patel verfasserin aut Evaluation of Marginal Fit of Three Different Interim Restoration Materials - An In-vitro Study 2020 Text txt rdacontent Computermedien c rdamedia Online-Ressource cr rdacarrier 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. marginal accuracy provisional restoration interim crown Dentistry Ramandeep Dugal verfasserin aut Pallavi Madanshetty verfasserin aut Aamir Godil verfasserin aut Arshi Kazi verfasserin aut Ajinkya Kirad verfasserin aut In Journal of Dental Materials and Techniques Mashhad University of Medical Sciences, 2013 9(2020), 3, Seite 161-170 (DE-627)74713782X (DE-600)2716877-3 22520317 nnns volume:9 year:2020 number:3 pages:161-170 https://doi.org/10.22038/jdmt.2020.48345.1370 kostenfrei https://doaj.org/article/fd5357b67ac445809560d8f5924bd637 kostenfrei http://jdmt.mums.ac.ir/article_16513_3e9943d0c07498d2ee9d6a40529cb96d.pdf kostenfrei https://doaj.org/toc/2322-4150 Journal toc kostenfrei https://doaj.org/toc/2252-0317 Journal toc kostenfrei GBV_USEFLAG_A SYSFLAG_A GBV_DOAJ GBV_ILN_20 GBV_ILN_22 GBV_ILN_23 GBV_ILN_24 GBV_ILN_31 GBV_ILN_39 GBV_ILN_40 GBV_ILN_60 GBV_ILN_62 GBV_ILN_63 GBV_ILN_65 GBV_ILN_69 GBV_ILN_73 GBV_ILN_74 GBV_ILN_95 GBV_ILN_105 GBV_ILN_110 GBV_ILN_151 GBV_ILN_161 GBV_ILN_170 GBV_ILN_206 GBV_ILN_213 GBV_ILN_230 GBV_ILN_285 GBV_ILN_293 GBV_ILN_602 GBV_ILN_2014 GBV_ILN_4012 GBV_ILN_4037 GBV_ILN_4112 GBV_ILN_4125 GBV_ILN_4126 GBV_ILN_4249 GBV_ILN_4305 GBV_ILN_4306 GBV_ILN_4307 GBV_ILN_4313 GBV_ILN_4322 GBV_ILN_4323 GBV_ILN_4324 GBV_ILN_4325 GBV_ILN_4338 GBV_ILN_4367 GBV_ILN_4700 AR 9 2020 3 161-170
allfieldsGer	10.22038/jdmt.2020.48345.1370 doi (DE-627)DOAJ074297201 (DE-599)DOAJfd5357b67ac445809560d8f5924bd637 DE-627 ger DE-627 rakwb eng RK1-715 Ahmed Patel verfasserin aut Evaluation of Marginal Fit of Three Different Interim Restoration Materials - An In-vitro Study 2020 Text txt rdacontent Computermedien c rdamedia Online-Ressource cr rdacarrier 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. marginal accuracy provisional restoration interim crown Dentistry Ramandeep Dugal verfasserin aut Pallavi Madanshetty verfasserin aut Aamir Godil verfasserin aut Arshi Kazi verfasserin aut Ajinkya Kirad verfasserin aut In Journal of Dental Materials and Techniques Mashhad University of Medical Sciences, 2013 9(2020), 3, Seite 161-170 (DE-627)74713782X (DE-600)2716877-3 22520317 nnns volume:9 year:2020 number:3 pages:161-170 https://doi.org/10.22038/jdmt.2020.48345.1370 kostenfrei https://doaj.org/article/fd5357b67ac445809560d8f5924bd637 kostenfrei http://jdmt.mums.ac.ir/article_16513_3e9943d0c07498d2ee9d6a40529cb96d.pdf kostenfrei https://doaj.org/toc/2322-4150 Journal toc kostenfrei https://doaj.org/toc/2252-0317 Journal toc kostenfrei GBV_USEFLAG_A SYSFLAG_A GBV_DOAJ GBV_ILN_20 GBV_ILN_22 GBV_ILN_23 GBV_ILN_24 GBV_ILN_31 GBV_ILN_39 GBV_ILN_40 GBV_ILN_60 GBV_ILN_62 GBV_ILN_63 GBV_ILN_65 GBV_ILN_69 GBV_ILN_73 GBV_ILN_74 GBV_ILN_95 GBV_ILN_105 GBV_ILN_110 GBV_ILN_151 GBV_ILN_161 GBV_ILN_170 GBV_ILN_206 GBV_ILN_213 GBV_ILN_230 GBV_ILN_285 GBV_ILN_293 GBV_ILN_602 GBV_ILN_2014 GBV_ILN_4012 GBV_ILN_4037 GBV_ILN_4112 GBV_ILN_4125 GBV_ILN_4126 GBV_ILN_4249 GBV_ILN_4305 GBV_ILN_4306 GBV_ILN_4307 GBV_ILN_4313 GBV_ILN_4322 GBV_ILN_4323 GBV_ILN_4324 GBV_ILN_4325 GBV_ILN_4338 GBV_ILN_4367 GBV_ILN_4700 AR 9 2020 3 161-170
allfieldsSound	10.22038/jdmt.2020.48345.1370 doi (DE-627)DOAJ074297201 (DE-599)DOAJfd5357b67ac445809560d8f5924bd637 DE-627 ger DE-627 rakwb eng RK1-715 Ahmed Patel verfasserin aut Evaluation of Marginal Fit of Three Different Interim Restoration Materials - An In-vitro Study 2020 Text txt rdacontent Computermedien c rdamedia Online-Ressource cr rdacarrier 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. marginal accuracy provisional restoration interim crown Dentistry Ramandeep Dugal verfasserin aut Pallavi Madanshetty verfasserin aut Aamir Godil verfasserin aut Arshi Kazi verfasserin aut Ajinkya Kirad verfasserin aut In Journal of Dental Materials and Techniques Mashhad University of Medical Sciences, 2013 9(2020), 3, Seite 161-170 (DE-627)74713782X (DE-600)2716877-3 22520317 nnns volume:9 year:2020 number:3 pages:161-170 https://doi.org/10.22038/jdmt.2020.48345.1370 kostenfrei https://doaj.org/article/fd5357b67ac445809560d8f5924bd637 kostenfrei http://jdmt.mums.ac.ir/article_16513_3e9943d0c07498d2ee9d6a40529cb96d.pdf kostenfrei https://doaj.org/toc/2322-4150 Journal toc kostenfrei https://doaj.org/toc/2252-0317 Journal toc kostenfrei GBV_USEFLAG_A SYSFLAG_A GBV_DOAJ GBV_ILN_20 GBV_ILN_22 GBV_ILN_23 GBV_ILN_24 GBV_ILN_31 GBV_ILN_39 GBV_ILN_40 GBV_ILN_60 GBV_ILN_62 GBV_ILN_63 GBV_ILN_65 GBV_ILN_69 GBV_ILN_73 GBV_ILN_74 GBV_ILN_95 GBV_ILN_105 GBV_ILN_110 GBV_ILN_151 GBV_ILN_161 GBV_ILN_170 GBV_ILN_206 GBV_ILN_213 GBV_ILN_230 GBV_ILN_285 GBV_ILN_293 GBV_ILN_602 GBV_ILN_2014 GBV_ILN_4012 GBV_ILN_4037 GBV_ILN_4112 GBV_ILN_4125 GBV_ILN_4126 GBV_ILN_4249 GBV_ILN_4305 GBV_ILN_4306 GBV_ILN_4307 GBV_ILN_4313 GBV_ILN_4322 GBV_ILN_4323 GBV_ILN_4324 GBV_ILN_4325 GBV_ILN_4338 GBV_ILN_4367 GBV_ILN_4700 AR 9 2020 3 161-170
language	English
source	In Journal of Dental Materials and Techniques 9(2020), 3, Seite 161-170 volume:9 year:2020 number:3 pages:161-170
sourceStr	In Journal of Dental Materials and Techniques 9(2020), 3, Seite 161-170 volume:9 year:2020 number:3 pages:161-170
format_phy_str_mv	Article
institution	findex.gbv.de
topic_facet	marginal accuracy provisional restoration interim crown Dentistry
isfreeaccess_bool	true
container_title	Journal of Dental Materials and Techniques
authorswithroles_txt_mv	Ahmed Patel @@aut@@ Ramandeep Dugal @@aut@@ Pallavi Madanshetty @@aut@@ Aamir Godil @@aut@@ Arshi Kazi @@aut@@ Ajinkya Kirad @@aut@@
publishDateDaySort_date	2020-01-01T00:00:00Z
hierarchy_top_id	74713782X
id	DOAJ074297201
language_de	englisch
fullrecord	<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><collection xmlns="http://www.loc.gov/MARC21/slim"><record><leader>01000caa a22002652 4500</leader><controlfield tag="001">DOAJ074297201</controlfield><controlfield tag="003">DE-627</controlfield><controlfield tag="005">20230309123448.0</controlfield><controlfield tag="007">cr uuu---uuuuu</controlfield><controlfield tag="008">230228s2020 xx \|\|\|\|\|o 00\| \|\|eng c</controlfield><datafield tag="024" ind1="7" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">10.22038/jdmt.2020.48345.1370</subfield><subfield code="2">doi</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="035" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">(DE-627)DOAJ074297201</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="035" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">(DE-599)DOAJfd5357b67ac445809560d8f5924bd637</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="040" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">DE-627</subfield><subfield code="b">ger</subfield><subfield code="c">DE-627</subfield><subfield code="e">rakwb</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="041" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">eng</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="050" ind1=" " ind2="0"><subfield code="a">RK1-715</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="100" ind1="0" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Ahmed Patel</subfield><subfield code="e">verfasserin</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="245" ind1="1" ind2="0"><subfield code="a">Evaluation of Marginal Fit of Three Different Interim Restoration Materials - An In-vitro Study</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="264" ind1=" " ind2="1"><subfield code="c">2020</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="336" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Text</subfield><subfield code="b">txt</subfield><subfield code="2">rdacontent</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="337" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Computermedien</subfield><subfield code="b">c</subfield><subfield code="2">rdamedia</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="338" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Online-Ressource</subfield><subfield code="b">cr</subfield><subfield code="2">rdacarrier</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="520" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">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.</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">marginal accuracy</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">provisional restoration</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">interim crown</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="653" ind1=" " ind2="0"><subfield code="a">Dentistry</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="0" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Ramandeep Dugal</subfield><subfield code="e">verfasserin</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="0" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Pallavi Madanshetty</subfield><subfield code="e">verfasserin</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="0" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Aamir Godil</subfield><subfield code="e">verfasserin</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="0" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Arshi Kazi</subfield><subfield code="e">verfasserin</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="0" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Ajinkya Kirad</subfield><subfield code="e">verfasserin</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="773" ind1="0" ind2="8"><subfield code="i">In</subfield><subfield code="t">Journal of Dental Materials and Techniques</subfield><subfield code="d">Mashhad University of Medical Sciences, 2013</subfield><subfield code="g">9(2020), 3, Seite 161-170</subfield><subfield code="w">(DE-627)74713782X</subfield><subfield code="w">(DE-600)2716877-3</subfield><subfield code="x">22520317</subfield><subfield code="7">nnns</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="773" ind1="1" ind2="8"><subfield code="g">volume:9</subfield><subfield code="g">year:2020</subfield><subfield code="g">number:3</subfield><subfield code="g">pages:161-170</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="856" ind1="4" ind2="0"><subfield code="u">https://doi.org/10.22038/jdmt.2020.48345.1370</subfield><subfield code="z">kostenfrei</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="856" ind1="4" ind2="0"><subfield code="u">https://doaj.org/article/fd5357b67ac445809560d8f5924bd637</subfield><subfield code="z">kostenfrei</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="856" ind1="4" ind2="0"><subfield code="u">http://jdmt.mums.ac.ir/article_16513_3e9943d0c07498d2ee9d6a40529cb96d.pdf</subfield><subfield code="z">kostenfrei</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="856" ind1="4" ind2="2"><subfield code="u">https://doaj.org/toc/2322-4150</subfield><subfield code="y">Journal toc</subfield><subfield code="z">kostenfrei</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="856" ind1="4" ind2="2"><subfield code="u">https://doaj.org/toc/2252-0317</subfield><subfield code="y">Journal toc</subfield><subfield code="z">kostenfrei</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_USEFLAG_A</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">SYSFLAG_A</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_DOAJ</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_20</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_22</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_23</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_24</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_31</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_39</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_40</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_60</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_62</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_63</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_65</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_69</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_73</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_74</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_95</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_105</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_110</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_151</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_161</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_170</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_206</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_213</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_230</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_285</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_293</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_602</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2014</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4012</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4037</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4112</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4125</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4126</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4249</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4305</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4306</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4307</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4313</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4322</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4323</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4324</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4325</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4338</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4367</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4700</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="951" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">AR</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="952" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="d">9</subfield><subfield code="j">2020</subfield><subfield code="e">3</subfield><subfield code="h">161-170</subfield></datafield></record></collection>
callnumber-first	R - Medicine
author	Ahmed Patel
spellingShingle	Ahmed Patel misc RK1-715 misc marginal accuracy misc provisional restoration misc interim crown misc Dentistry Evaluation of Marginal Fit of Three Different Interim Restoration Materials - An In-vitro Study
authorStr	Ahmed Patel
ppnlink_with_tag_str_mv	@@773@@(DE-627)74713782X
format	electronic Article
delete_txt_mv	keep
author_role	aut aut aut aut aut aut
collection	DOAJ
remote_str	true
callnumber-label	RK1-715
illustrated	Not Illustrated
issn	22520317
topic_title	RK1-715 Evaluation of Marginal Fit of Three Different Interim Restoration Materials - An In-vitro Study marginal accuracy provisional restoration interim crown
topic	misc RK1-715 misc marginal accuracy misc provisional restoration misc interim crown misc Dentistry
topic_unstemmed	misc RK1-715 misc marginal accuracy misc provisional restoration misc interim crown misc Dentistry
topic_browse	misc RK1-715 misc marginal accuracy misc provisional restoration misc interim crown misc Dentistry
format_facet	Elektronische Aufsätze Aufsätze Elektronische Ressource
format_main_str_mv	Text Zeitschrift/Artikel
carriertype_str_mv	cr
hierarchy_parent_title	Journal of Dental Materials and Techniques
hierarchy_parent_id	74713782X
hierarchy_top_title	Journal of Dental Materials and Techniques
isfreeaccess_txt	true
familylinks_str_mv	(DE-627)74713782X (DE-600)2716877-3
title	Evaluation of Marginal Fit of Three Different Interim Restoration Materials - An In-vitro Study
ctrlnum	(DE-627)DOAJ074297201 (DE-599)DOAJfd5357b67ac445809560d8f5924bd637
title_full	Evaluation of Marginal Fit of Three Different Interim Restoration Materials - An In-vitro Study
author_sort	Ahmed Patel
journal	Journal of Dental Materials and Techniques
journalStr	Journal of Dental Materials and Techniques
callnumber-first-code	R
lang_code	eng
isOA_bool	true
recordtype	marc
publishDateSort	2020
contenttype_str_mv	txt
container_start_page	161
author_browse	Ahmed Patel Ramandeep Dugal Pallavi Madanshetty Aamir Godil Arshi Kazi Ajinkya Kirad
container_volume	9
class	RK1-715
format_se	Elektronische Aufsätze
author-letter	Ahmed Patel
doi_str_mv	10.22038/jdmt.2020.48345.1370
author2-role	verfasserin
title_sort	evaluation of marginal fit of three different interim restoration materials - an in-vitro study
callnumber	RK1-715
title_auth	Evaluation of Marginal Fit of Three Different Interim Restoration Materials - An In-vitro Study
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.
abstractGer	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.
abstract_unstemmed	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.
collection_details	GBV_USEFLAG_A SYSFLAG_A GBV_DOAJ GBV_ILN_20 GBV_ILN_22 GBV_ILN_23 GBV_ILN_24 GBV_ILN_31 GBV_ILN_39 GBV_ILN_40 GBV_ILN_60 GBV_ILN_62 GBV_ILN_63 GBV_ILN_65 GBV_ILN_69 GBV_ILN_73 GBV_ILN_74 GBV_ILN_95 GBV_ILN_105 GBV_ILN_110 GBV_ILN_151 GBV_ILN_161 GBV_ILN_170 GBV_ILN_206 GBV_ILN_213 GBV_ILN_230 GBV_ILN_285 GBV_ILN_293 GBV_ILN_602 GBV_ILN_2014 GBV_ILN_4012 GBV_ILN_4037 GBV_ILN_4112 GBV_ILN_4125 GBV_ILN_4126 GBV_ILN_4249 GBV_ILN_4305 GBV_ILN_4306 GBV_ILN_4307 GBV_ILN_4313 GBV_ILN_4322 GBV_ILN_4323 GBV_ILN_4324 GBV_ILN_4325 GBV_ILN_4338 GBV_ILN_4367 GBV_ILN_4700
container_issue	3
title_short	Evaluation of Marginal Fit of Three Different Interim Restoration Materials - An In-vitro Study
url	https://doi.org/10.22038/jdmt.2020.48345.1370 https://doaj.org/article/fd5357b67ac445809560d8f5924bd637 http://jdmt.mums.ac.ir/article_16513_3e9943d0c07498d2ee9d6a40529cb96d.pdf https://doaj.org/toc/2322-4150 https://doaj.org/toc/2252-0317
remote_bool	true
author2	Ramandeep Dugal Pallavi Madanshetty Aamir Godil Arshi Kazi Ajinkya Kirad
author2Str	Ramandeep Dugal Pallavi Madanshetty Aamir Godil Arshi Kazi Ajinkya Kirad
ppnlink	74713782X
callnumber-subject	RK - Dentistry
mediatype_str_mv	c
isOA_txt	true
hochschulschrift_bool	false
doi_str	10.22038/jdmt.2020.48345.1370
callnumber-a	RK1-715
up_date	2024-07-03T22:23:30.486Z
_version_	1803598336345767936
fullrecord_marcxml	<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><collection xmlns="http://www.loc.gov/MARC21/slim"><record><leader>01000caa a22002652 4500</leader><controlfield tag="001">DOAJ074297201</controlfield><controlfield tag="003">DE-627</controlfield><controlfield tag="005">20230309123448.0</controlfield><controlfield tag="007">cr uuu---uuuuu</controlfield><controlfield tag="008">230228s2020 xx \|\|\|\|\|o 00\| \|\|eng c</controlfield><datafield tag="024" ind1="7" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">10.22038/jdmt.2020.48345.1370</subfield><subfield code="2">doi</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="035" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">(DE-627)DOAJ074297201</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="035" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">(DE-599)DOAJfd5357b67ac445809560d8f5924bd637</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="040" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">DE-627</subfield><subfield code="b">ger</subfield><subfield code="c">DE-627</subfield><subfield code="e">rakwb</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="041" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">eng</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="050" ind1=" " ind2="0"><subfield code="a">RK1-715</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="100" ind1="0" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Ahmed Patel</subfield><subfield code="e">verfasserin</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="245" ind1="1" ind2="0"><subfield code="a">Evaluation of Marginal Fit of Three Different Interim Restoration Materials - An In-vitro Study</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="264" ind1=" " ind2="1"><subfield code="c">2020</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="336" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Text</subfield><subfield code="b">txt</subfield><subfield code="2">rdacontent</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="337" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Computermedien</subfield><subfield code="b">c</subfield><subfield code="2">rdamedia</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="338" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Online-Ressource</subfield><subfield code="b">cr</subfield><subfield code="2">rdacarrier</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="520" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">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.</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">marginal accuracy</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">provisional restoration</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">interim crown</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="653" ind1=" " ind2="0"><subfield code="a">Dentistry</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="0" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Ramandeep Dugal</subfield><subfield code="e">verfasserin</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="0" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Pallavi Madanshetty</subfield><subfield code="e">verfasserin</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="0" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Aamir Godil</subfield><subfield code="e">verfasserin</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="0" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Arshi Kazi</subfield><subfield code="e">verfasserin</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="0" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Ajinkya Kirad</subfield><subfield code="e">verfasserin</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="773" ind1="0" ind2="8"><subfield code="i">In</subfield><subfield code="t">Journal of Dental Materials and Techniques</subfield><subfield code="d">Mashhad University of Medical Sciences, 2013</subfield><subfield code="g">9(2020), 3, Seite 161-170</subfield><subfield code="w">(DE-627)74713782X</subfield><subfield code="w">(DE-600)2716877-3</subfield><subfield code="x">22520317</subfield><subfield code="7">nnns</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="773" ind1="1" ind2="8"><subfield code="g">volume:9</subfield><subfield code="g">year:2020</subfield><subfield code="g">number:3</subfield><subfield code="g">pages:161-170</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="856" ind1="4" ind2="0"><subfield code="u">https://doi.org/10.22038/jdmt.2020.48345.1370</subfield><subfield code="z">kostenfrei</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="856" ind1="4" ind2="0"><subfield code="u">https://doaj.org/article/fd5357b67ac445809560d8f5924bd637</subfield><subfield code="z">kostenfrei</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="856" ind1="4" ind2="0"><subfield code="u">http://jdmt.mums.ac.ir/article_16513_3e9943d0c07498d2ee9d6a40529cb96d.pdf</subfield><subfield code="z">kostenfrei</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="856" ind1="4" ind2="2"><subfield code="u">https://doaj.org/toc/2322-4150</subfield><subfield code="y">Journal toc</subfield><subfield code="z">kostenfrei</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="856" ind1="4" ind2="2"><subfield code="u">https://doaj.org/toc/2252-0317</subfield><subfield code="y">Journal toc</subfield><subfield code="z">kostenfrei</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_USEFLAG_A</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">SYSFLAG_A</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_DOAJ</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_20</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_22</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_23</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_24</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_31</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_39</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_40</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_60</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_62</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_63</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_65</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_69</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_73</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_74</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_95</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_105</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_110</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_151</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_161</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_170</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_206</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_213</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_230</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_285</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_293</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_602</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2014</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4012</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4037</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4112</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4125</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4126</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4249</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4305</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4306</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4307</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4313</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4322</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4323</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4324</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4325</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4338</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4367</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4700</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="951" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">AR</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="952" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="d">9</subfield><subfield code="j">2020</subfield><subfield code="e">3</subfield><subfield code="h">161-170</subfield></datafield></record></collection>
score	7.399585

Nicht das Richtige dabei?

Schreiben Sie uns!

Evaluation of Marginal Fit of Three Different Interim Restoration Materials - An In-vitro Study

Nicht das Richtige dabei?

Zugang & Verfügbarkeit

Vorhandene Bände

Nicht das Richtige dabei?