- Email: [email protected]
Readers' round table
Readers’round tabk
SYDNEY, AUSTRALIA To THE EDITOR: I commend Dr. Robert E. Going for his detailed description of a “blow on” technique for rubber-base impressions (J. PROS. DETT. 20: 339-344, 1968). We have been using this procedure in Sydney for about seven years; perhaps it even originated here. However, I have yet to find a dentist who can air drive “the rubber into all pinholes.” The blunt metal spiral applicator appears to be an acceptable solution. In all other respects I can find nothing to surpass Dr. Going’s technique. JOHN BAWLER MCDERMOTT
WRIGHT-PATTERSON AFB, OHIO To THE EDITOR: The third edition of the “Glossary of Prosthodontic Terms” appeared in the JOURNAL recently (20: 443-480, 1968). In this edition, the word “objectionable” (Obj.) is no longer used to inform the readers of terms “. . not necessarily professionally acceptable.“” The preface to the third edition states “. . . an objectionable term has simply been crossreferenced to the correct term in each instance.” This introduces slight confusion in three areas. 1. The following terms which are cross-referenced terms in the third edition appeared articulation, clasp guide in the second edition but were not listed therein as “objectionable”: line, cure, cuspal interference, denture-supporting area, horizontal overjet, horizontal overjut, interdigitation, occlusal curvature, overjet, overjut, study cast, and wax model denture. terms that were cross-referenced. How2. Definitions were given to some “objectionable” ever, other terms that fell into this category were not listed as being “objectionable” in the second edition. They were as follows: gum contour, gums, Hydrocal, line of occlusion, occlusal disharmony, occlusal wear, physiologic rest position, rest position, and stress-bearing area. In the above two situations, are we to consider these terms as “objectionable” terms? 3. The second edition listed three terms with accompanying definitions as being “objecSince they are not crosstionable” terms (Costen’s syndrome, trial plate, and technic). referenced in the third edition, it may be assumed that they are not “objectionable” terms. The questions that I have posed are of a constructive nature. They do not detract from the outstanding effort of The Nomenclature Committee in compiling the up-to-date third edition of the “Glossary of Prosthodontic Terms.” JOSEPH NASSIF, MAJOR, USAF (DC) *Preface
346
to the third edition,
p. 443.
SYDNEY, AUSTRALIA To THE EDITOR: I commend Dr. Robert E. Going for his detailed description of a “blow on” technique for rubber-base impressions (J. PROS. DETT. 20: 339-344, 1968). We have been using this procedure in Sydney for about seven years; perhaps it even originated here. However, I have yet to find a dentist who can air drive “the rubber into all pinholes.” The blunt metal spiral applicator appears to be an acceptable solution. In all other respects I can find nothing to surpass Dr. Going’s technique. JOHN BAWLER MCDERMOTT
WRIGHT-PATTERSON AFB, OHIO To THE EDITOR: The third edition of the “Glossary of Prosthodontic Terms” appeared in the JOURNAL recently (20: 443-480, 1968). In this edition, the word “objectionable” (Obj.) is no longer used to inform the readers of terms “. . not necessarily professionally acceptable.“” The preface to the third edition states “. . . an objectionable term has simply been crossreferenced to the correct term in each instance.” This introduces slight confusion in three areas. 1. The following terms which are cross-referenced terms in the third edition appeared articulation, clasp guide in the second edition but were not listed therein as “objectionable”: line, cure, cuspal interference, denture-supporting area, horizontal overjet, horizontal overjut, interdigitation, occlusal curvature, overjet, overjut, study cast, and wax model denture. terms that were cross-referenced. How2. Definitions were given to some “objectionable” ever, other terms that fell into this category were not listed as being “objectionable” in the second edition. They were as follows: gum contour, gums, Hydrocal, line of occlusion, occlusal disharmony, occlusal wear, physiologic rest position, rest position, and stress-bearing area. In the above two situations, are we to consider these terms as “objectionable” terms? 3. The second edition listed three terms with accompanying definitions as being “objecSince they are not crosstionable” terms (Costen’s syndrome, trial plate, and technic). referenced in the third edition, it may be assumed that they are not “objectionable” terms. The questions that I have posed are of a constructive nature. They do not detract from the outstanding effort of The Nomenclature Committee in compiling the up-to-date third edition of the “Glossary of Prosthodontic Terms.” JOSEPH NASSIF, MAJOR, USAF (DC) *Preface
346
to the third edition,
p. 443.