ArticleCureus2024
Impression Disinfection and Its Effect on Dimensional Accuracy and Surface Detail in the Times of COVID-19: An In Vitro Study.
Article in Cureus, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Article
- Effect of Ultraviolet C light disinfection on the dimensional stability of dental impression materials: A scoping review of the literature.Journal of clinical and experimental dentistry · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction The disinfection of impressions is crucial to eliminate the viral and other microbial loads to prevent the cross contamination of diseases. The aim of this study was to compare the effect of different virucidal disinfecting methods on the dimensional accuracy and surface detail reproduction (SDR) of impression materials. Methods A total of 160 samples were fabricated with different impression materials using zinc oxide eugenol (Group 1), alginate (Group 2), polyether (Group 3), and addition silicone (Group 4) impression materials, each containing 40 samples (n=40). These groups were further divided into Subgroups A, B, C, and D (n=10) based on the disinfecting method used. Disinfection was carried out using 0.2% peracetic acid (A), a natural polymer of glucosamine (B), ultraviolet (UV) radiation (C), and ozonated water (D). The disinfected impressions were poured in type IV gypsum, and the obtained casts were checked for dimensional accuracy and surface detail reproduction (SDR). For dimensional accuracy, a one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) test and, for surface detail reproduction, the chi-square test were used to compare the different subgroups of each impression material separately. Results Zinc oxide eugenol samples showed the lowest mean dimensional change when disinfected with 0.2% peracetic acid (1A=154.1 µm), and alginate showed the lowest mean dimensional change when disinfected using ozonated water (2D=134.9 µm). On the other hand, the lowest mean dimensional change observed in polyether and addition silicone samples was those which were disinfected using UV radiation (3C=100.9 µm and 4C=113.5 µm). Surface detail was reproduced adequately in most of the samples. Conclusion A 0.2% peracetic acid could be used to disinfect zinc oxide eugenol impressions, ozonated water for alginate impressions, and UV radiation for polyether and addition silicone impressions.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.