Moulding M B, Loney R W, Ritsco R G
University of Saskatchewan, Saskatoon, Canada.
Int J Prosthodont. 1994 Sep-Oct;7(5):468-72.
Provisional restorations were fabricated on a cast metal model and the resulting marginal discrepancies were measured. In the control group, the restorations were fabricated directly on the die and no coolant was applied. Five other methods of fabricating provisional restorations were evaluated. The mean marginal discrepancies were as follows: Control = 0.228 mm, In Situ (control plus coolant) = 0.196 mm, Removal (removed from die to polymerize) = 0.403 mm, On/Off (repeated removal/replacement) = 0.601 mm, Reline = 0.074 mm, and Indirect = 0.161 mm. The mean marginal discrepancy for the On/Off technique was significantly greater than that for all other techniques. The mean marginal discrepancy with the Removal technique was significantly greater than that with the Control, In Situ, Reline, and Indirect techniques. No significant differences were found between the Control, In Situ, Reline, and Indirect techniques.
在铸造金属模型上制作临时修复体，并测量由此产生的边缘差异。在对照组中，修复体直接在代型上制作，不使用冷却液。评估了其他五种制作临时修复体的方法。平均边缘差异如下：对照组 = 0.228毫米，原位法（对照组加冷却液）= 0.196毫米，脱模法（从代型上取下聚合）= 0.403毫米，反复取下/替换法（On/Off）= 0.601毫米，重衬法 = 0.074毫米，间接法 = 0.161毫米。反复取下/替换法的平均边缘差异显著大于所有其他方法。脱模法的平均边缘差异显著大于对照组、原位法、重衬法和间接法。对照组、原位法、重衬法和间接法之间未发现显著差异。
