Thomas Klettke

Practice‐based PREP Panel handling evaluation of a new impression mixing device and the associated material

AIMS To evaluate the handling of a new impression mixing device and the associated impression material by general dental practitioner members of the PREP Panel. DESIGN By means of a questionnaire, the participating practitioners recorded their views on the mixing machine and impression materials, having used these for ten weeks. SETTING UK general dental practices. PARTICIPANTS General dental practitioner members of a UK practice-based research group. METHODS A questionnaire was designed to elicit views on the performance of the mixing device and impression material under test. This was distributed to the practitioners who had used the test materials for 10 weeks and the data thereby obtained collated and presented, principally in the form of VAS scales. OUTCOME MEASURES Rating of various parameters of the mixing device and impression materials on VAS scales. RESULTS The Pentamix 3 machine scored well for ease of initial use [4.8 on a visual analogue scale (VAS) where 1 = very difficult to use and 5 = very easy to use]. In a range of criteria (including cleanliness, easy handling, time to fill the tray and overall convenience) the Pentamix scored highly on VAS scales. A maximum score of 5 (on a VAS where 1 = very dissatisfied and 5 = very satisfied) was achieved for reproducible mixing quality. The appreciation of the Pentamix 3 mixing machine was demonstrated by the fact that 85% (n = 11) of evaluators stated that they would recommend it to colleagues. Regarding the impression material under evaluation, 85% (n = 11) of the evaluators stated that they would recommend Impregum Quick impression materials to their colleagues. CONCLUSIONS Within the limitations of this study, the Pentamix 3 automatic impression mixing device scored highly in this assessment, together with the impression materials assessed.