Journal of Prosthetic Dentistry
Volume 85, Issue 1 , Pages 82-87, January 2001

Effect of evaporation and mixing technique on die spacer thickness: A preliminary study☆☆★★♢♢

School of Dental and Oral Surgery, Columbia University, New York, N.Y

Abstract 

Statement of problem. Casting relief is required for proper seating of castings to allow for luting agent thickness. The application of die spacer to the die is the most common method of obtaining casting relief. Die spacer film thicknesses that are outside the ideal range of 25 to 40 μm can cause clinical problems. Thickness can be affected by the separation of die spacer constituents, which may not be reconstituted by mixing, in the bottle and by the evaporation of volatile components while the bottle is open.

Purpose. The purpose of this study was to determine the effects of component evaporation and die spacer mixing technique on applied die spacer thickness.

Material and methods. Bottles of Gold Tru-fit die spacer were left open for 0, 1, 4, 8, and 24 hours at 22°C. Spacer solutions were shaken either by hand per the manufacturer's directions or on a dental vibrator for 1 minute. One even brush stroke of spacer was applied to clean glass slides. Three die spacer films were made for each combination of time and mixing technique. Eighteen thickness measurements per sample at various sites were recorded with profilometer tracings. Statistical differences were determined with a 2-way ANOVA.

Results. Handshaking provided greater die spacer thickness, which increased with the time that the bottle was open. Vibration provided lower thickness with no statistical increase with time.

Conclusion. Insufficient agitation caused lower film thickness. Excessive evaporation caused higher film thickness. (J Prosthet Dent 2001;85:82-7.)

To access this article, please choose from the options below

Login to an existing account or Register a new account.

  • Purchase this article for 15.00 USD (You must login/register to purchase this article)

    Online access for 24 hours. The PDF version can be downloaded as your permanent record.

  • Subscribe to this title

    Get unlimited online access to this article and all other articles in this title 24/7 for one year.

  • Claim access now

    For current subscribers with Society Membership or Account Number.

  • Visit SciVerse ScienceDirect to see if you have access via your institution.
 

 aAssistant Professor of Clinical Dentistry, Division of Prosthodontics.

☆☆ bResearch Scientist, Division of Prosthodontics.

 cAssociate Professor, of Clinical Dentistry; Director, Division of Prosthodontics.

★★ dPrivate practice, Jersey City, N.J.

 This study was supported in part by grant No. NIH R29DE10980.

♢♢ Reprint requests to: Dr Jason J. Psillakis, Division of Prosthodontics, School of Dental and Oral Surgery, Columbia University, 630 W 168th St, New York, NY 10032, Fax: (212)305-8493, E-mail: jjp29@columbia.edu

PII: S0022-3913(01)37571-6

doi:10.1067/mpr.2001.113028

Journal of Prosthetic Dentistry
Volume 85, Issue 1 , Pages 82-87, January 2001