Search PubMed⌕ Search

Biomedical subjects

T D Taylor

Publications and source records attributed to T D Taylor.

At least 73 records · Page 4Linked to original sources
PubMed1984

Prosthodontic survey. Part I: Removable prosthodontic laboratory survey.

A questionnaire was mailed to 488 dental laboratories in five midwestern states, of which 303 or 62% were returned after two mailings. The survey was conducted to discern what techniques are most frequently used by practicing dentists. The results indicate that dentists frequently use techniques that require a minimum of appointment time.

Dental Technicians↗
PubMed1984

Tooth duplication in complete dentures.

This article describes the duplication of porcelain denture teeth in acrylic resin. The method allows the patient to use their existing denture as a transitional prosthesis without harming opposing restorations.

Acrylic Resins↗
PubMed1984

Prosthodontic laboratory and curriculum survey. Part III: Fixed prosthodontic laboratory survey.

A questionnaire was mailed to 488 dental laboratories in five midwestern states. One hundred ninety (39%) of the questionnaires were returned. The purposes of the survey were (1) to discern what fixed prosthodontic techniques were most frequently used by practicing dentists, (2) to provide insight into the laboratory technician's perception of the quality of fixed prosthodontic care, (3) to point out problems in dentist/technician interaction, and (4) to indicate areas of undergraduate fixed prosthodontic education that may need revision. Results indicate that dentists are using techniques that require a minimum of appointment time and are delegating a great portion of their responsibilities for fixed prosthodontic procedures to the laboratory technician. Dentist/technician interaction is a significant problem, and from the technician's point of view the quality of fixed prosthodontic care provided by the average practicing dentist is marginal at best.

Curriculum↗
PubMedDate not supplied

Retentiveness of dental cements used with metallic implant components.

There is limited dental literature evaluating the retentive capabilities of luting agents when used between metal components, such as cast metal restorations cemented onto machined metal implant abutments. This study compared the retentive strengths of 5 different classes of luting agents used to cement cast noble metal alloy crowns to 8-degree machined titanium cementable implant abutments from the Straumann ITI Implant System. Sixty prefabricated 5.5-mm solid titanium implant abutments and implants were used; 30 received the standard surface preparation and the other 30 received an anodized surface preparation. Anodized implant components were used to reflect current implant marketing. Sixty castings were fabricated and randomly paired with an abutment and implant. A total of 12 castings were cemented onto the implant-abutment assemblies for each of the 5 different luting agents (zinc phosphate, resin composite, glass ionomer, resin-reinforced glass ionomer, and zinc oxide-non-eugenol). After cementation, the assemblies were stored in a humidor at room temperature prior to thermocycling for 24 hours. Each casting was pulled from its respective abutment, and the force at which bond failure occurred was recorded as retentive strength. A statistically significant difference was found between the 5 cements at P < or = .001. Of the cements used, resin composite demonstrated the highest mean retentive strength. Zinc phosphate and resin-reinforced glass-ionomer cements were the next most retentive, while glass ionomer and zinc oxide-non-eugenol cements demonstrated minimal retention. In addition, retention was not altered by the use of an anodized abutment surface.

Adhesiveness↗