|
|
||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
1 College of Dentistry, The Ohio State University, Columbus, Ohio
1. Restorations placed with pneumatic, automatic and hand condensors were all of acceptable density (14.0 sp. gr.).
2. Larger plugger points, lighter blows, and right angle pluggers produced restorations of lesser density.
3. Soft blows with the pneumatic condensor produced specimens of adequate density.
Submitted on December 15, 1944
| HOME | HELP | FEEDBACK | SUBSCRIPTIONS | ARCHIVE | SEARCH | TABLE OF CONTENTS |
| IADR Journals | Advances in Dental Research ® |
| Journal of Dental Research ® | Critical Reviews (1990-2004) |