No abstract available.
Rubber* ; Wettability*

The purpose of this study was to evalute the effect of immersion disinfection on the dimensional stability of rubber impression materials. The metallic master model was made in order to simulate the intraoral arch form. Impressions were made from four impression materials (Exaflex, Extrude, Reprosil, Impregum-F) and immersed in three disinfectant solutions (Wydex, Vi-Pon, Potadine). Casts from the impressions were measured according to the interpreparation distance. The A-B and The B-D abutment distance were compared with the control group and disinfected groups. The results were as follows; 1. The measurements of the stone cast increased relative to the master model and there was a significant difference (P<0.05). 2. The relative dimensional change of the stone cast as compared with master model ranged from 0.10% to 0.56% in the A-B distance and ranged from 0.04% to 0.27% in the B-D distance. 3. The dimensional change of the disinfected groups as compared with the control group was significantly different in the three impression materials except for Impregum-F (P<0.05). 4. The relative dimensional change of the disinfected groups compared with the control group ranged from 0% to 0.20% in the A-B distance and ranged from -0.09% to 0.11% in the B-D distance. These results suggest that immersion disinfection of rubber impression materials by chemical disinfectants causes very small dimensional change and the change is clinically acceptable for prothesis fabrication
Disinfectants ; Disinfection* ; Immersion* ; Rubber*

The purpose of this study was to compare surface roughness and morphologic changes after use of various plaque control devices to titanium implant surfaces. The study materials were 6 ITI titanium implants(Bonefit(R)) and 5 plaque control devices. 6 implants were divided into 6 different groups and instrumented by each plaque control devices as follows. 1) Group I : untreated control 2) Group II : Titanium curette(Titanium curette(R), 3i) 80 vertical/horizontal strokes 3) Group III : Plastic curette(Implacare(R), Hu-Friedy) 80 vertical/horizontal strokes 4) Group IV : Plastic tip-ultrasonic scaler(Amdent(R), Amdent) 160 seconds 5) Group V : Rotating interdental brush(Identobrush(R), Identoflex) 160 seconds 6) Group VI : Abrasive rubber cup polisher(Zircate(R), Prophy paste, Dentsply) 160 seconds. All specimens were prepared for evaluation by surface roughness tester, optical stereomicroscopy(OM) and scanning electron microscopy(SEM). The Ra and Rt mean values of the tested specimens were 1) Group I (Ra=0.170+/-0.007micrometer, Rt=1.297+/-0.016micrometer) 2) Group II (Ra=0.209+/-0.006micrometer, Rt=1.602+/-0.110micrometer) 3) Group III (Ra=0.179+/-0.001micrometer, Rt=1.429+/-0.055micrometer) 4) Group IV (Ra=0.182+/-0.005micrometer, Rt=1.511+/-0.085micrometer) 5) Group V (Ra=0.301+/-0.008micrometer, Rt=1.882+/-0.131micrometer) 6) Group VI (Ra=0.147+/-0.010micrometer, Rt=1.059+/-0.021micrometer) In Ra values, experimental group II, V, VI were statistically significant different when compared with control. OM and SEM observation showed that experimental group III, IV were minimal changes when compared with control and group VI was smoothest among other experimental groups. The results suggested that plastic curette and plastic tip-ultrasonic scaler were predictable devices to titanium implant surface.
Plastics ; Rubber ; Stroke ; Titanium*

No abstract available.
Hemorrhage* ; Hemorrhoids* ; Ligation* ; Rubber*

No abstract available.
Blister* ; Nevus* ; Rubber*

No abstract available.
Blister* ; Nevus* ; Rubber*

No abstract available.
Hemorrhoidectomy* ; Hemorrhoids* ; Ligation* ; Rubber*

No abstract available.
Eczema* ; Hand* ; Rubber*

Sixty premolars extracted for orthodontic treatment were divided into four groups, and the residual resin was removed with four different rotary finishing instruments at a fixed speed of 18,500+/-300rpm on the low speed handpiece. The instruments were G1; 169L carbide fissure bur, G2; No.2 round bur, G3; No.4 round bur, G4; No.8 round bur. Then, the enamel received a 5-second polishing with a rubber cup and a pumice. To find the extent of loss on the enamel at this point, prophylaxis was done with the rubber cup and a pumice prior to bonding of the bracket(P1) and removal of residual resin by means of appropriate procedure applicable to each resprctive group(P2) followed. The final polishing was done with the rubber cup and pumice(P3), and the enamel surface roughness was measured each by the surface measuring instrument. The whole process was obesrved under a scanning electron microscope to gain the following results : At P2, the enamel surface roughness in G1 showed most smoothly with 2.60+/-0.55microgram; in G2, 3.24+/-0.80microgram; in G3, 3.44+/-0.94microgram; in G4, 3.89+/-0.54microgram, the rougjest. G2 and G3 showed no statistical significance(P>0.05). At P3, the enamel surface roughness in G1 showed most smoothly with 2.29+/-0.47microgram, in G2, 2.44+/-0.56microgram, in G3, 2.44+/-0.58microgram, in G4, 2.92+/-0.43microgram, the roughwst. G1 vs G2, G3, and G2 vs G3 had no statistical significances(P>0.05). In all groups, P2 and P3 showed rougher in surface roughness than P1, and P2 rougher than P3(P<0.01). In a case of 5-second prophylaxis with the rubber cup and the pumice on a virgin, normal enamel. fine scratches were found under the scanning electron microscope. In all four groups, unremovable gouges remained even agter polishing with the rubber and pumice; residual resin was not observed with naked eye when finished with the rubber and pumice, but the resin debris was observed under the scanning electron microscope.
Bicuspid ; Dental Enamel* ; Rubber

Stomach ; Rubber ; Latex