Cited by 3Dental materials and restorationsDental Implant Techniques and OutcomesScientific and Engineering Research Topics

Practice-based PREP Panel handling evaluation of a new impression mixing device and the associated material

Open access
Trevor Burke, F.J., Crisp, Russell J., Klettke, Thomas·2011·International Dental Journal

Abstract

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1111/j.1875-595x.2011.00079.x

Cites

9 of 9 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

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)
OpenAlex
W1891261896
Cited by
3
References
9
Citations by year
2024: 1 · 2022: 1 · 2020: 1
FWCI
0.00
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
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