{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.02666666666666667, 'fraction_numerical': 0.005185185185185185, 'mean_word_length': 5.058295964125561, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 1, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Handling characteristics of a gallium alloy triturated with alcohol.

PURPOSE
To assess the handling characteristics of a gallium alloy triturated with one drop (10 microL) of ethyl alcohol and compare them to those of a high-copper amalgam.


MATERIALS AND METHODS
A commercial gallium alloy (Gallium Alloy GFII) and a high-copper amalgam (Tytin) were used. Ten dentists each restored four identical MO preparations in acrylic typodont teeth (two for each material). Each restoration was immediately evaluated by the operator for placement, condensation, proximal contact, carving, and resistance to fracture during matrix removal and overall quality according to a method used previously. The rating scale for each criterion ranged from 1 (very poor) to 5 (very good). Scores for each criterion for the amalgam and gallium alloy restorations were statistically compared.


RESULTS
The gallium alloy tested was still rated significantly worse (P < or = 0.05) than amalgam for placement, condensation and carving but there were no significant differences in scores for other criteria. The dentists judged the handling of the gallium alloy in all criteria as fair to good and evaluated it as better in placement, condensation and establishment of proximal contact compared to a previous study, mainly because the pre-set material was no longer sticky.