{"id":3630,"date":"2017-01-19T08:43:59","date_gmt":"2017-01-19T08:43:59","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/localhost\/sdi\/www\/en-us\/research-abstracts\/research-abstracts-gs80\/"},"modified":"2017-05-12T08:42:23","modified_gmt":"2017-05-12T08:42:23","slug":"research-abstracts-gs80","status":"publish","type":"page","link":"https:\/\/www.sdi.com.au\/en-us\/downloads\/research-abstracts\/research-abstracts-gs80\/","title":{"rendered":"Research Abstracts – gs80."},"content":{"rendered":"

[vc_row][vc_column][vc_row_inner el_class=”no-padding” el_id=”top”][vc_column_inner width=”2\/3″][vc_column_text]<\/p>\n

GS80 research<\/h1>\n

[\/vc_column_text][vc_empty_space height=”15px” el_class=”emty_basic”][vc_column_text]GS-80\u00a0– a 40% silver non gamma 2 admix alloy<\/strong><\/p>\n

Performance<\/strong><\/p>\n

    \n
  1. Smales R. J., Gerke D. C.; Clinical Behavior over Three Years of GS-80 and Lojic+ Amalgam Alloys, Aust. Dent J. 1994;39(6):344-347.<\/a><\/li>\n
  2. Asmussen E., Pentzfeldt A., The Royal Dental College Copenhagen. Unpublished correspondence August 1988.<\/a><\/li>\n
  3. Roberts H. W. Lt Col, Coover M. Lt Co, Meyer R., Mitchell W., Beasley B., Berridge J., Evaluation of GS-80 Amalgam, USAF Dental Investigation Service.<\/a><\/li>\n<\/ol>\n

     <\/p>\n

    Biocompatible<\/strong><\/p>\n

      \n
    1. Ellender G., Feik S., Gaviria C., The biocompatability testing of some dental amalgams in vivo. Australian Dental Journal 1990;35(6):497-504.<\/a><\/li>\n<\/ol>\n

      [\/vc_column_text][\/vc_column_inner][vc_column_inner width=”1\/3″][vc_empty_space height=”100px” el_class=”emty_basic”][vc_single_image image=”3522″ img_size=”full”][\/vc_column_inner][\/vc_row_inner][vc_separator][\/vc_column][\/vc_row][vc_row el_id=”p1″][vc_column][vc_row_inner el_class=”no-padding”][vc_column_inner][vc_column_text]Performance<\/strong><\/p>\n

      Smales R. J., Gerke D. C., Clinical Behavior over Three Years of GS-80 and Lojic+ Amalgam Alloys, Aust. Dent J. 1994;39(6):344-347.<\/p>\n

      The clinical performance of GS-80 and Lojic+ amalgam alloys was compared with that of Dispersalloy, Valiant-PhD, Lojic N and Permite amalgam alloys over periods of up to three years. The 114 restorations were placed by one dentist in 23 canine, 418 premolar and 673 molar permanent teeth of 301 adult patients treated in a private practice.<\/p>\n

      Direct and indirect clinical assessments were made of the restorations for failures (there were no true failures), and of the deterioration of four clinical factors. All restorations were rated as being either good (A) or adequate (B) for each of the four factors which, apart from surface texture, showed some slight but statistically significant clinical deterioration with time, Lojic+ and Permite showed clinically slight but statistically more surface roughness and marginal fracture, while Lojic+ and GS-80 showed more surface tarnishing, than did the other alloys. There were no statistically significant differences between the alloys for marginal staining.<\/p>\n

      GS-80 was subjected to assessments of surface texture, tarnishing, marginal staining and marginal fracture. Assessment was done using photographic techniques and the results rated by rank. GS-80 is reported as being easy to carve and polish giving a smooth finish. The differences in the properties evaluated are reported as being clinically insignificant.[\/vc_column_text][\/vc_column_inner][\/vc_row_inner][vc_row_inner][vc_column_inner width=”1\/2″][vc_column_text]Request Full Copy<\/a>[\/vc_column_text][\/vc_column_inner][vc_column_inner width=”1\/2″][vc_column_text]<\/p>\n

      back to top<\/a><\/p>\n

      [\/vc_column_text][\/vc_column_inner][\/vc_row_inner][vc_separator][\/vc_column][\/vc_row][vc_row el_id=”p2″][vc_column][vc_row_inner el_class=”no-padding”][vc_column_inner][vc_column_text]Performance<\/strong><\/p>\n

      Asmussen E., Pentzfeldt A., The Royal Dental College Copenhagen. Unpublished correspondence August 1988.<\/p>\n

      GS-80 capsules were tested by the authors. They reported that the compressive strengths were high and far above the limit of the specification. The setting expansion is reported as being slightly positive and is optimal. The authors conclude that the amalgam alloy “must be regarded as a high quality product”.[\/vc_column_text][\/vc_column_inner][\/vc_row_inner][vc_row_inner][vc_column_inner width=”1\/2″][vc_column_text]Request Full Copy<\/a>[\/vc_column_text][\/vc_column_inner][vc_column_inner width=”1\/2″][vc_column_text]<\/p>\n

      back to top<\/a><\/p>\n

      [\/vc_column_text][\/vc_column_inner][\/vc_row_inner][vc_separator][\/vc_column][\/vc_row][vc_row el_id=”p3″][vc_column][vc_row_inner el_class=”no-padding”][vc_column_inner][vc_column_text]Performance<\/strong><\/p>\n

      Roberts H. W. Lt Col, Coover M. Lt Co, Meyer R., Mitchell W., Beasley B., Berridge J., Evaluation of GS-80 Amalgam, USAF Dental Investigation Service.<\/p>\n

      To evaluate the clinical handling characteristics and selected physical properties of GS-80 amalgam restorative material. The results of this evaluation will determine its suitability for use in federal dental service clinics. The Laboratory evaluation consisted of exterior amalgam capsule microscopic evaluation, mercury vapour readings during trituration, residual visible mercury retained in the capsules after trituration and microleakage.<\/p>\n

      GS-80 was rated as acceptable for use by the Federal Dental Services with the following comments:<\/p>\n