Traditional oil-type fillers are commonly associated with cedarwood oil, but the category may also include a variety of other substances such as Canada balsam, clove oil, cinnamon oil, mineral oil, paraffin, paraffin oil, Joban oil, and even baby oil. These oil-type fillers generally have:
- Lower viscosity, meaning they are more fluid and penetrate fissures more easily.
- RI in the range of approximately 1.47 to 1.52.
- Shorter durability, as they tend to dry out or degrade over time, often requiring re-treatment.
- Ease of removal, making them simpler to clean out during re-treatment or refinishing processes.
Resin-type fillers, on the other hand, include branded products such as Epo Tek ( Epon® 828 or Araldite® 6010), Permasafe, Palma, ExCel, and even Opticon (if it still exists). These fillers are:
- Higher in viscosity, meaning they are thicker and less prone to seepage from filled fissures.
- RI closer to emeralds, approximately 1.55 to 1.58, making them more effective at reducing the visibility of fractures.
- Often part of a two-step process, where the fractures are first filled with resin and then sealed with a hardener, improving stability and longevity.
Previously, I thought there were only three classifications for fillers: Traditional, Modern, and Mixed. However, I have a question regarding AGL's classifications. I am uploading three different AGL reports: one specifies "Traditional," another mentions "Oil-Type," and the third doesn’t list any filler type at all.
Does this mean they all fall under the "Traditional" category? Why do these differences exist, and how are they determined? Could someone clarify how AGL differentiates between these classifications?
Attachment:
20240808_142145.jpg [ 379.68 KiB | Viewed 3579 times ]
Attachment:
20240820_155641.jpg [ 391.23 KiB | Viewed 3579 times ]
Attachment:
20241030_122804.jpg [ 347.17 KiB | Viewed 3579 times ]