Ciesco J N, Malone W F, Sandrik J L, Mazur B
J Prosthet Dent. 1981 Jan;45(1):89-94. doi: 10.1016/0022-3913(81)90018-4.
Five elastomeric impression materials were evaluated: two polysulfides (one lead-cure and one non-lead cure), two silicones (one condensation polymerization and one addition polymerization), and one polyether. These materials were subjected to simulated clinical conditions. Two techniques were evaluated. All materials were evaluated initially with use of a custom tray and manufacturers' adhesive. A second evaluation was performed without using the tray system. Both techniques were subjected to statistical comparison. Conclusions of the research were as follows: 1. All impression materials that were poured immediately and evaluated using a custom tray and adhesive consistently demonstrated superior results in comparison to those tested without the custom tray. 2. Polyether material consistently yielded superior results with or without a custom tray when compared to the other impression materials. The additional polymerization silicone ranked second, followed by the lead-cure polysulfide and the condensation polymerization silicone, respectively.
两种多硫化物（一种铅固化型和一种非铅固化型）、两种硅酮（一种缩合聚合型和一种加聚聚合型）以及一种聚醚。这些材料经受了模拟临床条件。评估了两种技术。所有材料最初均使用定制托盘和制造商的粘合剂进行评估。第二次评估在不使用托盘系统的情况下进行。两种技术都进行了统计学比较。该研究的结论如下：1. 与不使用定制托盘进行测试的材料相比，所有立即灌注并使用定制托盘和粘合剂进行评估的印模材料始终表现出更优的结果。2. 与其他印模材料相比，聚醚材料无论有无定制托盘，始终能产生更优的结果。加聚聚合型硅酮排名第二，其次分别是铅固化多硫化物和缩合聚合型硅酮。
