Millstein P L, Maya A, Segura J C
Department of Restorative Dentistry, Tufts University, School of Dental Medicine, Boston, Massachusetts 02138, USA.
Int J Prosthodont. 1995 Mar-Apr;8(2):129-34.
Three impression materials, Impregum, Permadyne, and Reprosil, were tested with three restorative materials, Lodestar, Dispersalloy, and Concise. Polished cylindrical samples of each restorative material with and without a collar design were used for impression retention testing. A pullout test using an Instron machine was used to test the samples that were individually submerged in the impression materials until set. Results show similar behavior for Lodestar and Dispersalloy with and without a collar. Permadyne and Impregum were significantly more retentive with resin composite than was Reprosil. Resin composite was significantly more retentive than the metals. Impression materials may bond with restorative materials, significantly increasing resistance to impression removal.
对三种印模材料(Impregum、Permadyne和Reprosil)与三种修复材料(Lodestar、Dispersalloy和Concise)进行了测试。使用带有和不带有颈环设计的每种修复材料的抛光圆柱形样本进行印模固位测试。使用Instron机器进行拔出试验,以测试单独浸没在印模材料中直至凝固的样本。结果表明,带有和不带有颈环的Lodestar和Dispersalloy表现相似。Permadyne和Impregum与树脂复合材料的固位力明显高于Reprosil。树脂复合材料的固位力明显高于金属。印模材料可能与修复材料结合,显著增加去除印模的阻力。