Aluminum barrier laminate or plastic tube as a dispenser for modeling plastic impression compound for border molding

Mete, Jitendra J.; Rajguru, Vilas; Dange, Shankar P

doi:10.1016/j.prosdent.2017.07.011

Cited by 2 publications

(1 citation statement)

References 3 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…16,17 Innovations such as automatic compound gun, aluminum laminate carrier, syringe in water bath and microwave oven were introduced for faster and easy handling of low fusing compound for peripheral tracing procedures. [18][19][20] Alternative materials for border molding such as light cure resin, modeling clay and bubble gum had advantages of increased working time and operator convenience. [21][22][23][24] An illustration of innovations for border molding procedure is presented in Fig.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Factors Influencing Technology Adoption of a Peripheral Tracing Device in Complete Denture Impressions

Gali

Melepurra

Sriniva

2022

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objectives: Rapid advancements in dental technologies have played a significant role in creating an efficient dental practice. The study aimed to explore the factors influencing the technology adoption of a device for complete denture impressions among dental health professionals. Materials and methods: Based on the variables expressed during the focus group discussion and literature review, a survey was conducted using a constructed questionnaire among 200 general dental practitioners, prosthodontists and academicians in prominent dental schools in Bengaluru, India. The questionnaire consisted predominantly of structured, closed-end questions based on the UTAUT2 Model using five-point Likert scale. Discriminant analysis was conducted to understand the characteristics of variables for discrimination of adopters and non-adopters of the device. Results: Participants showed a keen interest in adopting technology due to its convenience. 80.5 % of dentists were tempted to purchase if trial of the product was made available. Discriminant Analysis predicted the group membership with a good level of classification accuracy of adopters of 84 %. The variables that discriminated adopters and non-adopters were “easy to become skillful”, “plan to use the device more frequently”, “peer influence” “willingness to purchase the device”, “find it enjoyable” and “it is entertaining”. Conclusions: Effort Expectancy, Behavior, Social Influence and Hedonic Motivation played a role in influencing technology adoption among dental professionals. A dental professional is more likely to adopt the technology, if it can help improve his or her skills.

show abstract