Hydrocolloids were the first elastic materials to be used in the dental field. Elastic impression materials include reversible (agar-agar), irreversible (alginate) hydrocolloids and synthetic elastomers (polysulfides, polyethers, silicones). They reproduce an imprint faithfully, providing details of a high definition despite the presence of undercuts. With the removal of the impression, being particularly rich in water, the imprints can deform but later adapt to the original shape due to the elastic properties they possess. The advantages of using alginate include the low cost, a better tolerability on the part of the patient, the ease of manipulation, the short time needed for execution, the instrumentation and the very simple execution technique and possibility of detecting a detailed impression (even in the presence of undercuts) in a single step. A comprehensive review of the current literature was conducted according to the PRISMA guidelines by accessing the NCBI PubMed database. Authors conducted a search of articles in written in English published from 2008 to 2018. All the relevant studies were included in the search with respect to the characteristics and evolution of new marine derived materials. Much progress has been made in the search for new marine derived materials. Conventional impression materials are different, and especially with the advent of digital technology, they have been suffering from a decline in research attention over the last few years. However, this type of impression material, alginates (derived from marine algae), have the advantage of being among the most used in the dental medical field.

https://www.mdpi.com/1660-3397/17/1/18/pdf

Alginate Materials and Dental Impression Technique: A Current State of the Art and Application to Dental Practice.

This new CD from The Dental Channel is one of a series; other subjects include dental anxiety, restoration of the root filled tooth, and endodontics. All these have a very similar format, and the familiarity this gives is most helpful. On loading the CD you are presented with a screen giving you the serial number of your package, and inviting you to register your copy to unlock all the features. You will be able to run some parts of the package ten times prior to registration, following that you will be locked out for good. The package is divided into four sections: references, case studies, information and links and finally the inevitable quiz. The quiz is a useful facility in allowing the user to assess their uptake of knowledge; this too forms the basis of the verified assessment. Negative marking is used, so simply clicking on random answers will not score too highly. The case study section presents six cases. The first four are patients with suspicious lesions, and the remaining two demonstrate a full screening procedure and an excisional biopsy. Each of the first four cases invite you to interview the patient, make notes and come up with a diagnosis based on the answers given. You are then allowed to examine the patient with the aid of high quality clinical images, suggest investigations you may wish to carry out to confirm your findings and make your final diagnosis. There is also help on how an appropriate referral letter may be written. The ‘references’ section gives more information relating to the conditions covered in this package, including screening aids, prevention and epidemiology. The ‘information and links’ section gives contact details and allows you to connect to the world wide web. The ‘quiz’ is self-explanatory. I found this package easy to use, informative and enjoyable. This material, with its high quality images, video and sound, is a must for any dental practitioner who wishes to update his or her knowledge on oral cancer, in a relaxed, nonthreatening manner. This package (along with the others in the series) is available to all GDPs working in the GDS free of charge, and may be obtained through the postgraduate deaneries. For those wishing to boost their verified CPD requirements there is an option to pay £59.99 (inc VAT) and obtain verified ‘brownie points’ from the comfort of the easy chair. For those purchasing the verified ‘add on’, I am assured that at £52.00 per hour, £312.00 worth of CPD may be delivered by this one CD. Now that is a bargain. D. Speechley

/pdf/prosthetic-treatment-of-the-edentulous-patient-1l6vo0in9f.pdf

Prosthetic treatment of the edentulous patient.

Statement of problem Simplified edentulous jaw impression techniques have gained popularity, while their validity has not yet been evaluated. Purpose The purpose of this clinical study was to compare the trueness of maxillary edentulous jaw impressions made with irreversible hydrocolloid (ALG), polyvinyl siloxane (PVS), PVS modified with zinc oxide eugenol (ZOE) (PVSM), and an intraoral scanner (TRI) with a conventionally border-molded ZOE impression (control). Material and methods Twelve edentulous maxillary impressions were made with the impression techniques. The analog impressions were scanned using a laboratory scanner, imported into 3-dimensional comparison software, and superimposed against the corresponding control. Trueness was evaluated by calculating the effective deviation known as root mean square (RMS) for the entire surface (ES) and for specific regions of interest such as peripheral border, inner seal, midpalatal suture, ridge, and posterior palatal seal. The secondary outcomes for this study were the patients' perception of the impression techniques. Statistical analyses with the Wilcoxon tests were carried out (α=.05). Results For ES, significant differences were found when comparing ALG (1.21 ±0.35 mm) with PVS (0.75 ±0.17 mm; P=.008), PVSM (0.75 ±0.19 mm; P=.012), and TRI (0.70 ±0.18 mm; P=.006) but not among the other groups. Significant differences were found for peripheral border when comparing ALG (2.03 ±0.55 mm) with PVS (1.12 ±0.32 mm; P=.006), PVSM (1.05 ±0.29 mm; P=.003), and TRI (1.38 ±0.25 mm; P=.008), as well as TRI and PVSM (P=.028). Significant differences were also found for inner seal when comparing ALG (0.74 ±0.36 mm) with PVSM (0.52 ±0.13 mm; P=.041), as well as TRI (0.8 ±0.25 mm) versus PVS (0.56 ±0.14 mm; P=.005) and PVSM (P=.005). The difference at the ridge was significant when comparing PVS (0.18 ±0.07 mm) with PVSM (0.28 ±0.19 mm; P=.015) but not among the other groups. A significant difference was also found for posterior palatal seal when comparing PVS (0.55 ±0.41 mm) with PVSM (0.60 ±0.43 mm; P=.034). Patient perceptions showed significantly better satisfaction scores for ALG (1.83 ±2.03) and PVS (3.17 ±2.40) than for TRI (4.08 ±2.71), PVSM (4.58 ±2.35), and ZOE (6.83 ±1.75). Conclusions Edentulous impressions made with PVS, PVSM, and TRI had similar deviations and may yield clinically acceptable results. Irreversible hydrocolloids are contraindicated for definitive impression making in completely edentulous jaws.

Edentulous jaw impression techniques: An in vivo comparison of trueness.

https://eprints.whiterose.ac.uk/80775/1/Cost%20effectiveness%20of%20silicone%20and%20alginate%20impressions.pdf

Cost-effectiveness of silicone and alginate impressions for complete dentures.

This study aimed to assess the cost-effectiveness of photobiomodulation therapy (PBMT) in association with a Preventive Oral Care Program (POCP) compared with POCP alone in the treatment of radiotherapy (RT)-induced oral mucositis (OM). The cost-effectiveness was evaluated from the health provider perspective and conducted alongside a randomized, double-blind clinical trial. Participants were randomly assigned to either PBMT (n = 25) or control (n = 23) group. The PBMT group participants received PBMT associated with POCP. In the control group, patients were submitted to POCP alone. Costs were identified, quantified, and valued through observation and consultation of the hospital’s financial sector database and estimated in Brazilian real and converted to international dollars using the purchasing power parity exchange rate. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) was estimated by considering the prevention of severe OM, interruption of RT, and oral health-related quality of life (OHRQoL) scores, measured by the OHIP-14 and patient-reported OM symptoms scale (PROMS). The incremental cost of PBMT was $857.35, and the cost per session was $25.69. The ICER was $ 2867.39 to avoid one case of severe OM and $ 2756.75 to prevent one interruption in RT due to OM. ICER to reduce 1 point in OHIP-14 and PROMS scores were $170.79 and $31.75, respectively. PBMT is more cost-effective than POCP alone in preventing severe OM, worsening of the OHRQoL, and RT interruptions. PBMT is a promising therapy, especially to avoid interruptions in oncological treatment. ReBEC-RBR-5h4y4n

Cost-effectiveness randomized clinical trial on the effect of photobiomodulation therapy for prevention of radiotherapy-induced severe oral mucositis in a Brazilian cancer hospital setting

A randomised controlled trial of complete denture impression materials.

Popular Tasks used by Researchers

How can I help with your research?

Get more enhanced response by uploading the PDFs you want me to reference.

No relevant PDFs in your library

SciSpace is the AI research assistant for academics. Run systematic literature reviews on 280M+ papers, and write papers with cited sources. Trusted by 1M+ students, PhDs & researchers.

SciSpace | AI for Research

We encountered an error while loading the panel. Please try refreshing the page.

Something went wrong

Analyze PDFs

Code & Manuscripts

Funding & Grants

Literature & Patents

Medical & Clinical Data

Systematic Review

Visualize & Present

Web & Data

Build a Google Scholar-like website for your research.

Build a website

Create charts and images for your research

Create a Chart

Write a paper for submission to a journal

Draft a manuscript

Patent Search

Design eye-catching scientific posters in minutes.

Scientific Poster Generation

Systematic Literature Review

Anyone with the link can view this chat. You can switch it back to private anytime.

One task is running at the moment. Your messages will be shown right after.

Drag and drop or click here to browse

Loved by <highlight>1 million+</highlight> researchers

Extract a list of specific topics and their sources from unstructured text

Topics

Compare and analyze relevant papers that matches with your search

Papers

Get insights from PDFs and bookmarked papers from your library

My library

Recent searches

Try searching for:

Catch AI-generated content in scholarly and non-scholarly content

{ai} Detector

Ai Writer

Get PDF Summaries, highlighted text explanations 

Chat with PDF

Effortlessly create in-text citations and bibliographies in APA and 2,500 other formats

Citation generator

Get explanations, summaries, and answers on academic papers

Ease up your research workflow with {scispace}'s cohort of exciting AI tools

Elevate your academic writing skills and convey your ideas the way you want

Paraphraser

Explore our range of reading and writing tools

Your file is being prepared and should be ready in a few minutes. If it's a large file, it might take a bit longer. You can close this window, and we'll email you the file when it's done.

You have reached a maximum limit of <strong>{limit}</strong> columns in the table. Remove at least <strong>1</strong> column to add or create another one.

G. Dukanovic

Author Tools

Chat about Author

Papers

A randomised controlled trial of complete denture impression materials.

Cost-effectiveness of silicone and alginate impressions for complete dentures.