Campagni W V, Reisbick M H, Jugan M
Allegheny General Hospital, Pittsburgh, PA.
J Prosthodont. 1993 Sep;2(3):159-66. doi: 10.1111/j.1532-849x.1993.tb00401.x.
This project compares an accelerated technique for the casting of post-and-core restorations with four traditional techniques. The accelerated technique uses two phosphate-bonded investments and the traditional techniques use a gypsum- and a phosphate-bonded investment. The study measures and compares the differences between the seating of the casting and the seating of the acrylic resin pattern. The effects of the techniques on the fit of castings with and without a ferrule are also compared.
Six groups of 10 castings were made from plastic patterns formed on a stainless steel test die. A different investment and/or burnout method was used for each group. Each group had two subgroups: ferruled and nonferruled. The fit of the plastic patterns was measured at two time intervals after forming, 2 weeks and 3 months. The patterns were invested immediately after the 3-month measurement, and the difference in fit of the castings was calculated. An ANOVA and Tuckey-Kramer test were done to determine the statistical validity.
The seating of the patterns after 3 months of storage was consistently worse than the 2-week measurements of fit. The ferrule and nonferrule patterns were not statistically different in seating. Measurement of the castings showed that the ferruled castings seated significantly worse than the nonferrule castings. The difference in the seating of the castings as compared with the patterns was considered clinically unacceptable, showing a range of 0.301 mm to 0.528 mm. The nonferrule castings showed a significant difference in seating among groups. The difference ranged from -0.099 mm to 0.322 mm.
The castings of the ferrule subgroups were considered clinically unacceptable and were not analyzed for significance. Among the nonferrule castings, the group using a gypsum investment and conventional technique for investing and burnout but no ring liner showed the best seating. The accelerated technique was intermediate in seating with a difference of 0.148 mm from the seating of the patterns. This group was significantly different from the two best groups but not from the remaining three groups.
本项目将一种用于铸造桩核修复体的加速技术与四种传统技术进行比较。加速技术使用两种磷酸盐结合包埋材料,而传统技术使用石膏和磷酸盐结合包埋材料。本研究测量并比较铸件就位情况与丙烯酸树脂模型就位情况之间的差异。还比较了这些技术对有无箍套铸件适配性的影响。
从在不锈钢测试模具上形成的塑料模型制作六组,每组10个铸件。每组使用不同的包埋材料和/或焙烧方法。每组有两个亚组:有箍套的和无箍套的。在成型后的两个时间间隔,即2周和3个月时测量塑料模型的适配性。在3个月测量后立即对模型进行包埋,并计算铸件适配性的差异。进行方差分析和Tukey-Kramer检验以确定统计有效性。
储存3个月后模型的就位情况始终比2周时的适配性测量结果差。有箍套和无箍套模型在就位方面无统计学差异。铸件测量显示,有箍套的铸件就位情况明显比无箍套的铸件差。与模型相比,铸件就位的差异在临床上被认为是不可接受的,范围为0.301毫米至0.528毫米。无箍套的铸件在各组之间就位情况存在显著差异。差异范围为-0.099毫米至0.322毫米。
有箍套亚组的铸件在临床上被认为是不可接受的,未对其显著性进行分析。在无箍套的铸件中,使用石膏包埋材料以及传统的包埋和焙烧技术但不使用环形衬垫的组显示出最佳的就位情况。加速技术在就位方面处于中间水平,与模型就位情况相差0.148毫米。该组与两个最佳组有显著差异,但与其余三组无显著差异。