User Manual

15
45%
40%
35%
30%
25%
20%
15%
10%
5%
0%
Very high flow
0 %
High flow
7 %
Accurate
43 %
Low flow
29 %
Very low flow
21 %
G-ænial Universal Flo Technical Manual
9.0 Field evaluation
Inthedevelopmentphase,afieldtestofG-ænialUniversalFlowasconductedinJuneandJuly
2010, with twenty-height dentists. Almost 500 cases were restored using G-ænial Universal Flo,
as follows:
• Restorations:40%.
• Liningandbaseindications:36%.
• Sealants:5%,
• Rootsurfacesrestorations:5%
• Tunnelpreparations:5%
9.1 Handling
Very easy Easy Difficult Very Difficult
Ease of dispensing 25 % 71 % 4 % 0 %
Very good Good Acceptable Poor
Stickiness 25% 54% 18% 4%
Thixotropic property 18% 43% 29% 7%
Adaptation to cavity walls 32% 29% 21% 7%
Avoidance of excess paste extruding
due to residual pressure
25% 50% 18% 7%
Several factors that are of prime importance when placing a restoration were assessed during this
field test with the following results:
- The new syringe design was well accepted: 96% very easy or easy.
- The paste did not stick to the instrument: 79% very good or good.
- Absence of extrusion of paste due to residual pressure: 75% very good or good.
- Thixotropic material, not runny and stays in place once dispensed into the preparation: 61% very
good or good.
- The adaptation to the cavity wall or bonding agent was also rated well: 61% very good or good.
Regarding the flowability of the
material, it was considered appropriate
by 43% of users. Most of the other
users judged the material as low or very
low flowing, which is in line with the
stated properties of the material and is
useful when considering its indications.
How was the flowability of Gænial Universal Flo when placing
it into preparations?