Use of low fusing alloy in dentistry

Alvin G. Wee, BDS, MS,a Robert L. Schneider, DDS, MS,b and Steven A. Aquilino, DDS, MSc
College of Dentistry, University of Iowa, Iowa City, Iowa
Statement of problem. Low fusing alloy has been used in dentistry for remount procedures in both
fixed and removable prosthodontics, in implant prosthodontics for the fabrication of solid implant casts, in
maxillofacial prosthetics as oral radiation shields, and in dental research for its unique properties. Previously,
the use of low fusing alloy was thought to offer a high degree of dimensional accuracy. However, multiple
in vitro studies have shown that its presumed dimensional accuracy may be questionable.
Purpose. This article reviews the physical properties, metallurgical considerations of low fusing alloy, its
applications in dentistry, and a safe, simple method of using low fusing alloy. (J Prosthet Dent 1998;80:
540-5.)

CLINICAL IMPLICATIONS
Although many uses of low fusing alloy have been described previously in the dental lit-
erature, the clinician/researcher must be aware of the accuracy of the material and
potential health risks associated with its use.

L ow fusing alloy has been used in a variety of den-

tal applications for at least the last 36 years. Its first use
was documented by Lucia1 in 1961 for the purpose of
remounting crowns and fixed partial dentures. Since
then, the use of low fusing alloy has been documented
in fixed prosthodontics,1-7 removable prosthodontics,8
and implant prosthodontics.9 In maxillofacial prosthet-
ics, low fusing alloy is used to fabricate oral radiation
shield prostheses.9-16 Dental researchers who are famil-
iar with the properties of low fusing alloy have also used
it creatively within their research methods.17-19
Many low fusing alloys are available commercially
(Table I), vary in composition, and display different
desired properties. As its name implies, low fusing alloy
melts at a low temperature, within the range of 117°F
to 338°F.20 Low fusing alloy is easily cast into molds
and ready for use after a rapid solidification of less than
5 minutes. The alloy may be easily recovered and recy-
cled for reuse any number of times.
This article presents a literature review that examines
the physical properties and metallurgical considerations
of low fusing alloy and its applications within prostho-
Supported in part by a Rotary International Foundation Multi-Year
Ambassadorial Scholarship 1994-96.
The authors have no connection with or conduct research for any
company that is associated with low fusing alloy.
aAssistant Professor, Sections of Restorative Dentistry, Prosthodon-
tics and Endodontics, Department of Prosthodontics.
bClinical Director, Oral and Maxillofacial Implant Center, Associate
dontics and dental research. A safe, precise, and effi-
cient method to use low fusing alloy is also presented.
PHYSICAL PROPERTIES AND
METALLURGICAL CONSIDERATIONS
The chief elemental components of low fusing
alloy are bismuth, lead, tin, and occasionally indium
(Table I). Most low fusing alloys are composed of 3 or
more metals. Alloy systems that contain more than
2 metals have not been developed to the extent of bina-
ry diagrams because of the difficult preparation of the
alloy systems.21 Published binary phase diagrams22 of
bismuth, lead, tin, and indium illustrate some eutectic
alloys in their microstructures. A mixture is identified as
eutectic when the compositional metals are miscible in
the liquid state but separate into 2 phases in the solid
state. The 2 phases often precipitate as fine layers of
one phase over the other.23 The partial eutectic
microstructure in the composition of low fusing alloy
can account for its physical properties.
Eutectic alloys are relatively brittle as the presence of
insoluble phases inhibits slip in the alloy. At times, the
strength and hardness of these alloys may exceed their
primary components, due to the composite structure of
the alloy. In contrast, alloys composed of low fusing
metals with partial eutectic microstructure typically
retain their expected high ductility.21In a study by
Toreskog et al.,24 a low fusing alloy (Cerrolow 136,
Marmon Group, Inc., Belleforte, Pa.) was shown to be
relatively soft. The alloy demonstrated a Knoop hard-

Professor, Department of Prosthodontics.

ness of 9 but was too soft to be measured for Brinell
cDirector, Graduate Prosthodontics, Professor, Department of hardness. However, these researchers reported a negli-
Prosthodontics. gible relationship between Knoop hardness and abra-

540 THE JOURNAL OF PROSTHETIC DENTISTRY VOLUME 80 NUMBER 5

WEE, SCHNEIDER, AND AQUILINO THE JOURNAL OF PROSTHETIC DENTISTRY

Table I. List of low fusing alloys used in the dental literature

Composition*
Melting
Alloy Manufacturer’s name temperature Bi Pb Sn In Ag Cd

Fusible metal Williams Dixon, Inc., Carstadt, N.J. NA NA

Plumbers solder NA NA 0 50 50 0 0
Metallomat alloy Ivoclar, Schwann, Liechtenstein NA 53 0 45 0 2
B2OE2 alloy Alpha Metals Inc., Jersey City, N.J. NA 52 32 16 0 0
Melotte’s metal
Belmont alloy 2491 Belmont Metals Inc., Brooklyn, N.Y. 136°F 49 18 12 21 0
Indalloy 136 Indium Corp., Utica, N.Y. 136°F 49 18 12 21 0
Cerrolow 136 Marmon Group Inc., Belleforte, Pa. 136°F Likely to be similar to Belmont alloy 2491
and Indalloy 136
Lipowitz’s metal
Belmont alloy 2503 Belmont Metals Inc. 158°F 50 26.7 13.3 0 0 10
Ostalloy 158 Arconium Corp. of America, Providence, R.I. 158°F 50 26.7 13.3 0 0 10
Cerrobend Cerro Metal Products, Belleforte, Pa. 158°F 50 26.7 13.3 0 0 10
*Reported as percentage.
NA: Not available.

Table II. Percentage expansion of low fusing alloy

Study Alloy Reported expansion* (time) Actual expansion* (time)

Toreskog et al.24 Cerrlow 136 NA Occlusal = +0.42

(Marmon Group Inc.) Cervical = +0.24 (24 h)
Yoon et al.26 Indalloy 136 0 (1 h) 0.00 (0 h)
(Indium Corp.) –0.05 (0.5 h)
0.12 (336 h)
Plumber’s solder (NA) NA 0.00 (0 h)
–0.40 (0.5 h)
–0.43 (336 h)
Metallomat alloy +0.10 0.00 (0 h)
(Ivoclar) 0.01 (0.5 h)
0.08 (336 h)
B2OE2 alloy NA 0.00 (0 h)
(Alpha Metals Inc.) 0.28 (0.5 h)
0.024 (336 h)
Wee et al.27 Belmont alloy 2491 0.0 (initially) 0 - High SD
(Belmont Metals Inc.) –0.02 (5 h) (at least 24 h)
*Reported as percentage.
NA: Not available.

sive resistance for low fusing alloy.24 This differs from
the “apparent” positive correlation between hardness
and abrasion resistance associated with the majority of
the other materials tested in their study.24
The presence of partial eutectic microstructures in a
low fusing alloy also contributes to its low melting
point. Solidification of eutectic alloys present similar
curves to their pure metals, with the exception that
solidification temperature is lower than that of the pure
metals. These eutectic alloys possess a melting point at
the eutectic composition, rather than a melting range.
Any other possible combinations of the pure metals in
the alloy system will have a higher fusion temperature
than the melting point of the eutectic mixture.23 Thus,
eutectic alloys have been used to lower the fusion tem-
perature of alloys if desired.21 In a eutectic alloy, a flow
or creep may occur even at room temperature if the
recrystallization temperature of the matrix metal (lead)
is low.21 As one of the chief elements of low fusing
alloy, lead causes the alloy to slowly expand over time
(Table II).
It is unusual for products with different trade names
to demonstrate similar composition and melting tem-
peratures (Table I). Alloys that demonstrate such simi-
larities most likely are provided by the same supplier
but marketed under different trade names. The often
referred to “Melotte’s metal” in the dental literature is
actually Belmont alloy 2491 (Belmont Metals Inc.),

NOVEMBER 1998 541

THE JOURNAL OF PROSTHETIC DENTISTRY
Fig. 1. Low fusing alloy used in remount cast for multiple
posterior single crowns in mandibular arch.
which has been clarified by Pameijer.5 Examination of
the composition and melting temperatures of Indalloy
136 (Indium Corp., Utica, N.Y.), Cerrolow 136
(Marmon Group Inc.) and Belmont Alloy 2491 (Bel-
mont Metals Inc.) suggests that these alloys are similar
(Table I). Lipowitz’s metal is also marketed under dif-
ferent trade names, including Ostalloy 158 (Arconium
Corp. of America), Belmont Alloy 2503 (Belmont
Metals Inc.), and Cerrobend (Cerro Metal Products).7
Some manufacturers claim that low fusing alloy has
little or no dimensional change when passing from the
liquid to the solid state.20 However, the properties and
use of low fusing alloy and its dimensional accuracy are
questioned.24-27 It is not surprising, given the compo-
sitional variation of these alloys, that low fusing alloys
produced by different manufacturers have a wide range
of dimensional accuracy.
Low fusing alloy, as examined by Toreskog et al.,24
was found to be completely compatible with all the
impression materials studied at that time, including
polysulfide (Permlastic, Kerr Mfg. Co., Detroit,
Mich.). However, it was found that dies produced by
the alloy frequently exhibited rounded corners and pits
or nodules as a result of the collapse of voids in the
impression.
CLINICAL APPLICATIONS IN
PROSTHODONTICS
Remount procedures in fixed and removable
prosthodontics
Although remounting fixed and removable prosthe-
ses involves a number of additional procedures, the
remounting technique permits the clinician to refine
the occlusion in a more controlled environment than
can be experienced intraorally. The decision to carry
out a clinical remount is made by assessing the difficul-
ties associated with refining the occlusion intraorally, as
542
WEE, SCHNEIDER, AND AQUILINO
Fig. 2. Low fusing alloy used in remount cast for mandibular
RPD.
compared with the process of remounting on the artic-
ulator.
The use of low fusing alloy to fabricate remount
casts for multiple fixed units has been recommended
(Fig. 1).1-6 After fitting the castings intraorally for
proximal contacts, marginal fit, and contours, it has
been recommended that the fixed restorations be stabi-
lized with a mixture of temporary cement and petrole-
um jelly,6 or a multiform impression paste (Lactona
Corp., Philadelphia, Pa.).4 After an interocclusal record
and face-bow transfer are made, an impression is made
over the seated castings. Several techniques have been
described to ensure the “absolute” accuracy of the
remount impression.4-6
Before pouring the remount impression, internal
surfaces of the castings are painted with a separating
medium (petroleum jelly,4 Rubbersep, or Mucolube5).
All exposed external portions of the castings are cov-
ered with either melted baseplate wax, reversible, or
irreversible hydrocolloid material. A low fusing alloy is
melted and poured into the impression containing the
castings to cover and include the occlusal one third of
the dental alveolar ridges. Walker4 used a low fusing
alloy from Dentalloy Inc. (Stanton, Calif.), whereas
Pameijer5 recommended using a low fusing alloy called
“Melotte’s metal/Belmont alloy 2491” (Belmont Met-
als Inc.). Retentive components, such as pins or paper
clips, are heated and placed into the cooled alloy, and
the remainder of the cast is poured in die stone. The
low fusing alloy allows easy and repeated removal of the
castings from the remount cast.5,6 If gypsum is used,
abrasion and possible fracture of the die5 can occur.
Low fusing alloy has also been used to fabricate a
remount cast for removable partial dentures (RPDs)
(Fig. 2). Reitz8 recommended making an interocclusal
record and a face-bow transfer before making an intra-
oral irreversible hydrocolloid impression of the seated
VOLUME 80 NUMBER 5
WEE, SCHNEIDER, AND AQUILINO
RPD. A low fusing alloy (Melotte’s metal/Belmont
alloy 2491) was then poured into the natural teeth por-
tion of the impression. A retentive component was
heated and embedded into the low fusing alloy within
the impression, and the rest of the cast was poured with
plaster. This method allows the removal of the RPD
after the remount cast is made, so that any type of inte-
rocclusal record can be taken. Teeth chipping or wear
are less likely to occur during the process of equilibrat-
ing the prosthesis.
Implant solid cast fabrication
Recently, low fusing alloy has also been recommend-
ed as a material for the fabrication of solid implant casts.
Schneider and Wee9 described the use of a low fusing
alloy in the fabrication of a solid multi-implant cast. The
low fusing alloy (Belmont 2491) has a melting point
of 136°F and a linear expansion after solidification of
0.05%.20 The melted alloy was poured into the implant
impression around abutment replicas. Once the alloy
solidified, retentive components were placed in the alloy
and the rest of the impression was poured in either ADA
type IV or V dental stone (Fig. 3).
Applications in dental research
Dental researchers knowledgeable of the properties of
low fusing alloy have used the alloy successfully in their
research methods. Particularly useful properties include
the castability of the alloy at low temperatures17 and the
nonbrittle nature of the alloy.18,19 Low fusing alloy has
been used to measure the accuracy of die materials and
impressions. Stackhouse et al.17 used low fusing alloy
(Indalloy 136, Indium Corp.) to create a counter die to
evaluate the accuracy of various die/impression material
combinations. Wang et al.18 developed an accurate and
reproducible intraoral method of measuring the distance
between 2 teeth by using casts fabricated from low
fusing alloy (Cerrolow-136). Zwetchkenbaum et al.19
used low fusing alloy in a study comparing the sizes of
the marginal gaps of nonrelined, relined corrected, and
paint-on corrected acrylic resin provisional crowns after
thermocycling and occlusal loading.
Accuracy of low fusing alloy
A common presumption when low fusing alloy is
used for fixed and removable prosthesis remount pro-
cedures, for solid implant cast fabrication, or in dental
research has been its accuracy. The recommended use
of this alloy had been based on empirical evidence for
particular techniques, as described by various clini-
cians.1,3-5,9 Measurements of accuracy of low fusing
alloy were not documented to accompany these tech-
nique investigations.
Low fusing alloy properties have been investigat-
ed,25 and its accuracy has been investigated for use as
transfer casts after indexing,25 as counter dies for mea-
NOVEMBER 1998
THE JOURNAL OF PROSTHETIC DENTISTRY
Fig. 3. Low fusing alloy used in solid implant master cast.
suring impression and die material accuracy,17 and as
solid implant casts27 (Table II).
Toreskog et al.24 evaluated the use of low fusing
alloy (Cerrolow-136) as a die material. The alloy with a
melting point of 136°F was heated to 145°F in a con-
stant temperature oven. The die was then poured, and
the alloy was allowed to solidify under 30 pounds of
pressure. The authors found that the alloy expanded to
0.42% at the occlusal region and 0.24% at the cervical
region of the die. Harper and Nicholls25 evaluated dis-
tortion in indexing methods and investing media for
soldering and remount procedures. They tested an
ADA type IV dental stone (Vel-mix, Kerr Mfg. Co.,
Emeryville, Calif.), an autopolymerizing acrylic resin,
and a low fusing alloy (Fusible Metal, Williams Dixon,
Inc., Carstadt, N.J.) as a transfer cast after indexing
with either polyether or zinc oxide eugenol (ZOE)
impression paste. A 3-dimensional analysis of distortion
was conducted. For the remount procedure, low fusing
alloy exhibited significantly more 3-dimensional distor-
tion than the ADA type IV dental stone.
Yoon et al.26 investigated the linear dimensional
changes of 3 low fusing alloys, using the master die of
ADA Specification No. 19.28 The samples were bench
cooled at room temperature for a half hour, separated,
then measured with a toolmaker’s microscope that had a
micrometer divided to 2.5 µm. Subsequent measure-
ments were made at 1 hour, 1.5 hours, and 2-week
intervals after casting. The authors reported a high
degree of a dimensional change with the B20E2 alloy
(Alpha Metals Inc.) (+0.3%) and the plumbers solder
(–0.4%). The Indalloy 136 alloy shrank 0.05% ± 0.02%,
then slightly expanded to 0.12% after 2 weeks. They
concluded that this alloy presented desirable features,
including a low fusing temperature, small dimensional
change, minimal surface bubbles, relatively satisfactory
543
THE JOURNAL OF PROSTHETIC DENTISTRY
Fig. 4. Melted low fusing alloy in hot water bath with plas-
tic syringe.
surface detail, and availability. The dimensional change
of the tested low fusing alloys did not coincide with the
manufacturers’ stated dimensional accuracy of the alloys.
Such results are not uncommon when considering
differences in method and measurement conditions.
Wee et al.27 evaluated the accuracy of low fusing alloy
solid implant casts compared with gypsum casts poured
in a polyether impression. The materials evaluated
included a low fusing alloy (Belmont alloy 2491), Vel-
mix, Die Keen (Miles Dental Products, South Bend,
Ind.), and Resin Rock resin impregnated gypsum hybrid
alloy (Whip Mix Corp, Louisville, Ky.). A digital veneer
caliper was used to evaluate the linear horizontal dimen-
sional change of the most distal abutments of the master
cast and experimental casts were made from the various
tested materials. Although the low fusing alloy was
found to produce the least horizontal linear dimension-
al change, it also exhibited the greatest standard devia-
tion. The mesiodistal strain was also evaluated when a
master framework was secured to the various experi-
mental casts by prosthetic retaining screws torqued to
10 Ncm. A 1-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) (α=.05)
revealed a statistically significant difference from the
mean (absolute) strain values among the materials
groups (P=.0261, power=0.99) Duncan’s multiple
range test (α=.05) indicated that low fusing alloy did not
differ significantly from the other materials. Casts made
from Resin Rock material produced the least amount of
mean microstrain on the framework. Overall, studies
that have evaluated the dimensional accuracy of low fus-
ing alloy have shown them not to be accurate, as com-
pared with standard gypsum materials.
CLINICAL APPLICATIONS IN
MAXILLOFACIAL PROSTHETICS
Low fusing alloy has been documented by many for
use as oral radiation shield prostheses.7,11-13,29,30 Radi-
544
WEE, SCHNEIDER, AND AQUILINO
Fig. 5. Plastic syringe used as dispenser for melted low fus-
ing alloy.
ation protection prostheses can be constructed as a
1-piece7,10,11,13,29 or a 2-piece16 oral radiation shield.
Noncancerous oral structures in the field of the exter-
nal radiation beam are protected from unnecessary
sequelae of therapeutic radiation31 through the use of
the shield. A radiation protection prosthesis can shield
a portion of the radiation from the tongue,11 alveolar
ridge, and/or the oral tissues opposite the radiation
source.16
Low fusing alloy has also been used to obturate the
palatal vault to decrease radiation exposure to nonin-
volved, previously irradiated tissues during brachyther-
apy of the palate.14 Shielding adjacent tissues of the
nose from radiation to treat carcinoma of the nasal
cavity and/or nasal vestibule has also been described.29
Although lead is the ideal material for maximum
shielding of radiation,12 its melting temperature of
more than 600°F melts or distorts the methyl
methacrylate that would be used as its carrier. The pop-
ular shielding material of choice to fabricate an oral
shield prosthesis is a low fusing alloy called Lipowitz
metal. Various thicknesses of Lipowitz’s metal (Ostal-
loy 158, Belmont Alloy 2503, and Cerrobend) have
been shown to prevent a percentage of the therapeutic
radiation passing through the shield to noncancerous
tissue.7,11,32 Lipowitz low fusing alloy, with a lead con-
tent of 26.7% and a melting temperature of 158°F, can
be poured into a shell of methyl methacrylate without
affecting that material.
SAFETY RECOMMENDATIONS
Health hazard information for low fusing alloy cau-
tions that dust vapors and/or fumes from the low fus-
ing alloy may be irritating to the respiratory system and
digestive system when ingested, resulting in acute
and/or potentially chronic body reactions with overex-
posure.20 Because exposure may also cause irritation to
VOLUME 80 NUMBER 5
WEE, SCHNEIDER, AND AQUILINO
the eyes and skin, a face shield and/or vented goggles
should be worn with gloves before handling the low
fusing alloy. Protective clothing should also be worn
and properly laundered after use.
The low fusing alloy from the manufacturer should
be sectioned in strips19 and melted in a water bath 20°F
above the melting temperature of the alloy (Fig. 4).5,27
This will prevent overheating and emission of toxic
vapors20 and minimize alloy shrinkage.5 A plastic
syringe19,24 or an “eye drop” dispenser5 can be used
to transfer the low fusing alloy from the water bath
(Fig. 5). Use of a plastic calibrated syringe allows a pre-
cise amount of alloy to be dispensed27; small incre-
ments should be dispensed to minimize the shrinkage
of the alloy.5
CONCLUSION
The popularity of low fusing alloy in the 1970s and
1980s as a remount material has declined, due in part
to the associated health hazards when the alloy is not
properly manipulated20 and its questionable accura-
cy.17,24,25,27 However, the use of low fusing alloy in
selected prosthodontic procedures and in dental
research is still applicable, with consideration of safe,
and efficient methods of handling.
REFERENCES
1. Lucia VO. Modern gnathological concepts. 1st ed. St Louis: CV Mosby;
1961.
2. Huffman RW, Regenos JW. Principles of occlusion. Volume VIII. London
(OH): H & R Press; 1973.
3. Kornfeld M. Mouth rehabilitation—clinical and laboratory procedures.
Volume II. St Louis: CV Mosby; 1974. p. 904-5, 988-90, 1027-9.
4. Walker PM. Remounting multiples casting prior to final cementation. J
Prosthet Dent 1981;46:145-8.
5. Pameijer JH. Remounting procedures. Periodontal and occlusal factors in
crown and bridge procedures. Holland: Dental Center for Postgraduate
Course; 1985. p. 404-12.
6. Rhoads JE, Rudd KD, Morrow RM. Impression and cast. Dental laborato-
ry procedures—fixed partial dentures. Volume II. Second edition. St Louis:
CV Mosby; 1981. p. 45-8.
7. Bashiri H, Suen JY. Dental considerations. In: Myers EN, Suen JY, editors.
Cancer of the head and neck. 3rd ed. Philadelphia: WB Saunders; 1996.
p. 117-30.
8. Reitz PV. Technique for mounting removable partial dentures on an artic-
ulator. J Prosthet Dent 1969;22:490-4.
9. Schneider RL, Wee AG. Fabricating low-fusing metal casts for more accu-
rate implant prosthodontics. J Prosthodont 1996;5:301-3.
10. Aramany MA, Drane JB. Radiation protection prostheses for edentulous
patients. J Prosthet Dent 1972;27:292-6.
11. Fleming TJ, Rambach SC. A tongue shielding radiation stent. J Prosthet
Dent 1983;49:389-92.
12. Rahn AO, Boucher LJ. Maxillofacial prosthetics—principles and concepts.
Philadelphia: WB Saunders; 1970. p. 49-82.
13. Poole TS, Flaxman NA. Use of protective prostheses during radiation ther-
apy. J Am Dent Assoc 1986;112:485-8.
NOVEMBER 1998
THE JOURNAL OF PROSTHETIC DENTISTRY
14. Randall ME, Salisbury PL 3d, Schmidtke M. Afterloaded radiation carrier
for carcinoma of the palate. A clinical report. J Prosthet Dent
1988;60:655-9.
15. Beumer J III, Curtis TA, Morrish RB Jr. Radiation complications in edentu-
lous patients. J Prosthet Dent 1976;36:193-203.
16. Coleman AJ. A technique for shielding electron beams used in radiother-
apeutic management of head and neck cancer. J Prosthodont 1996;5:
129-32.
17. Stackhouse JA Jr, Yoon W, Von Hagen S. Low-fusing counterdies for mea-
suring accuracy of dies or impression materials. J Prosthet Dent 1994;
71:209-14.
18. Wang JC, Charbeneau GT, Gregory WA, Dennison JB. Quantitative eval-
uation of approximal contacts in Class 2 composite resin restorations: a
clinical study. Oper Dent 1989;14:193-202.
19. Zwetchkenbaum S, Weiner S, Dastane A, Vaidyanathan TK. Effect of relin-
ing on long-term marginal stability of provisional crowns. J Prosthet Dent
1995;73:525-9.
20. Material safety data sheet: Low melting alloys. Brooklyn: Belmont Metals;
1992.
21. Anusavice JK, editor. Phillip’s science of dental materials. 10th ed.
Philadelphia: WB Saunders; 1996. p. 336-40.
22. Hansen M, Anderko K. Constitution of binary alloys. 2nd ed. New York:
McGraw-Hill; 1958. p. 313-4,324-6,336-9,1106-9.
23. Craig RG. Restorative dental materials. 10th ed. St Louis: CV Mosby;
1997. p. 111-7.
24. Toreskog S, Phillips RW, Schnell RL. Properties of die materials—a com-
parative study. J Prosthet Dent 1966;16:119-31.
25. Harper RJ, Nicholls JI. Distortion in indexing methods and investing
media for soldering and remount procedures. J Prosthet Dent 1979;
42:172-9.
26. Yoon W, Wexler I, Stackhouse JA. Low fusing counterdies to test
die/impression accuracy. J Dent Res 1985;64:906 [abstract].
27. Wee AG, Schneider RL, Aquilino SA, Huff TL, Lindquist TJ, Williamson
DL. Evaluation of the accuracy of solid implant cast. [Master’s thesis.]
Iowa City: The University of Iowa; 1997.
28. Revised American Dental Association Specification No. 19 for non-aque-
ous, elastomeric dental impression materials. American Dental Associa-
tion. J Am Dent Assoc 1977;94:733-41.
29. Ghalichebaf M, Chalian VA, Shidnia H. A shielded radium source carrier
nasal stent for the treatment of primary carcinoma of the nasal cavity. J
Prosthet Dent 1984;51:383-6.
30. Beumer J, Curtis TA, Nishimura R. Radiation therapy of head and neck
tumors. In: Beumer J, Curtis TA, Marunick MT, editors. Maxillofacial reha-
bilitation—prosthodontic and surgical considerations. St Louis: Ishiyaku
EuroAmerica; 1996. p. 43-111.
31. Arcuri MR, Schneider RL. The physiological effects of radiotherapy on oral
tissue. J Prosthodont 1992;1:37-41.
32. Farahani M, Eichmiller FC, McLaughlin WL. New method for shielding
electron beams used for head and neck cancer treatment. Med Phys
1993;20:1237-41.
Reprint requests to:
DR ALVIN G. WEE
SECTION OF RESTORATIVE DENTISTRY, PROSTHODONTICS AND ENDODONTICS
COLLEGE OF DENTISTRY
THE OHIO STATE UNIVERSITY
POSTLE HALL
305 W 12TH AVE
COLUMBUS, OH 43210-1241
Copyright © 1998 by The Editorial Council of The Journal of Prosthetic
Dentistry.
0022-3913/98/$5.00 + 0. 10/1/92204
545