Practice-based PREP Panel handling evaluation of a new impression mixing device and the associated material
Open accessAbstract
Aims To evaluate the handling of a new impression mixing device and the associated impression material by general dental practitioner members of the PREP Panel.Design By means of a questionnaire, the participating practitioners recorded their views on the mixing machine and impression materials, having used these for ten weeks.Setting UK general dental practices.Participants General dental practitioner members of a UK practice-based research group.Methods A questionnaire was designed to elicit views on the performance of the mixing device and impression material under test. This was distributed to the practitioners who had used the test materials for 10 weeks and the data thereby obtained collated and presented, principally in the form of VAS scales.Outcome measures Rating of various parameters of the mixing device and impression materials on VAS scales.Results The Pentamix 3 machine scored well for ease of initial use [4.8 on a visual analogue scale (VAS) where 1 = very difficult to use and 5 = very easy to use]. In a range of criteria (including cleanliness, easy handling, time to fill the tray and overall convenience) the Pentamix scored highly on VAS scales. A maximum score of 5 (on a VAS where 1 = very dissatisfied and 5 = very satisfied) was achieved for reproducible mixing quality. The appreciation of the Pentamix 3 mixing machine was demonstrated by the fact that 85% (n = 11) of evaluators stated that they would recommend it to colleagues. Regarding the impression material under evaluation, 85% (n = 11) of the evaluators stated that they would recommend Impregum Quick impression materials to their colleagues.Conclusions Within the limitations of this study, the Pentamix 3 automatic impression mixing device scored highly in this assessment, together with the impression materials assessed.
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Cites
Salzmann, J. A. (1977) · American Journal of Orthodontics · doi:10.1016/s0002-9416(77)90403-1 · Cited by 614 · see citing works
Lü, H., Nguyen, B., & Powers, J. M. (2004) · Journal of Prosthetic Dentistry · doi:10.1016/j.prosdent.2004.05.016 · Cited by 110 · see citing works
Research in general dental practice--problems and solutions
Burke, F. J. T., & McCord, J. F. (1993) · BDJ · doi:10.1038/sj.bdj.4808335 · Cited by 38 · see citing works
Influence of tray rigidity and impression technique on accuracy of polyvinyl siloxane impressions
Hoyos, A., & Soderholm, K.-J. (2012) · Journal of Prosthetic Dentistry · doi:10.1016/s0022-3913(12)60096-1 · Cited by 36 · see citing works
Trends in elastomeric impression materials.
Craig, R. G., & Sun, Z. (1997) · PubMed · Cited by 28 · see citing works
Nam, J., Raigrodski, A. J., Townsend, J. D., et al. (2007) · Journal of Prosthetic Dentistry · doi:10.1016/j.prosdent.2006.11.007 · Cited by 18 · see citing works
Clinical research-the silent partner in dental practice.
Mandel, I. D. (1993) · PubMed · Cited by 16 · see citing works
Wilson, N., Cowan, A. J., Crisp, R. J., et al. (2001) · PubMed · Cited by 3 · see citing works
Self-citationExtrusion-mixing compared with hand-mixing of polyether impression materials?
McMahon, C., Kinsella, D., & Fleming, G. J. P. (2010) · PubMed · Cited by 2 · see citing works
Flagged first, then by citations
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Dental Practice-Based Research Networks (D-PBRN) worldwide: a scoping review.
Canceill, T., Monsarrat, P., Faure-Clement, E., Tohme, M., Vergnes, J.-N., & Grosgogeat, B. (2021) · Journal of Dentistry · doi:10.1016/j.jdent.2020.103523 · Cited by 20 · see citing works
- Authors
- Trevor Burke, F. J., Crisp, R. J., & Klettke, T.
- Affiliations
- University of Birmingham (GB)
- Venue
- International Dental Journal
- Publisher
- Elsevier BV
- Published
- 2011-12
- Volume
- 61
- Issue
- 6
- Pages
- 321-327
- ISSN
- 0020-6539 (ISSN-L)
- PMC
- PMC9374942
- OpenAlex
- W1891261896
- Semantic Scholar
- 501943903a67959f3b1fde40abfd576a8d25058d
- Cited by
- 3
- References
- 9
- Citations by year
- 2024: 1 · 2022: 1 · 2020: 1
- FWCI
- 0.00
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- bronze
- doi.org
- Licence
- Locations
- International Dental Journal (publishedVersion)
- PubMed Central (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- University of Birmingham Research Portal (University of Birmingham) (submittedVersion)
- Topics
- Health Sciences › Dentistry › Orthodontics › Dental materials and restorations
- Health Sciences › Dentistry › Oral Surgery › Dental Implant Techniques and Outcomes
- Health Sciences › Dentistry › Periodontics › Scientific and Engineering Research Topics
- Keywords
- dental impression materials, practitioner satisfaction, dental impression technique, general dentists
- MeSH terms
- Attitude of Health Personnel, Dental Impression Materials, Dental Impression Technique, Dentists, Disinfection, Equipment Design, General Practice, Dental, United Kingdom, Humans, Resins, Synthetic, Surface Properties, Time Factors, Reproducibility of Results, Chemical Phenomena, Community-Based Participatory Research
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review