-
Dental Clinics of North America Oct 2017Dental impression making is the process of creating a negative form of the teeth and oral tissues, into which gypsum or other die materials can be processed to create... (Review)
Review
Dental impression making is the process of creating a negative form of the teeth and oral tissues, into which gypsum or other die materials can be processed to create working analogues. Contemporary dentistry generates new information every year and digital dentistry is becoming established and influential. Although dentists should stay abreast of new technologies, some of the conventional materials and time-tested techniques remain widely used. It is important to review the impression-making process to ensure that practitioners have up-to-date information about how to safely and effectively capture the exact form of the oral tissues to provide optimal patient management.
Topics: Computer-Aided Design; Dental Impression Materials; Dental Impression Technique; Dental Prosthesis Design; Disinfection; Humans
PubMed: 28886768
DOI: 10.1016/j.cden.2017.06.004 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Apr 2018Edentulism is relatively common and is often treated with the provision of complete or partial removable dentures. Clinicians make final impressions of complete dentures... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Edentulism is relatively common and is often treated with the provision of complete or partial removable dentures. Clinicians make final impressions of complete dentures (CD) and removable partial dentures (RPD) using different techniques and materials. Applying the correct impression technique and material, based on an individual's oral condition, improves the quality of the prosthesis, which may improve quality of life.
OBJECTIVES
To assess the effects of different final-impression techniques and materials used to make complete dentures, for retention, stability, comfort, and quality of life in completely edentulous people.To assess the effects of different final-impression techniques and materials used to make removable partial dentures, for stability, comfort, overextension, and quality of life in partially edentulous people.
SEARCH METHODS
Cochrane Oral Health's Information Specialist searched the following databases: Cochrane Oral Health's Trials Register (to 22 November 2017), the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (Cochrane Register of Studies, to 22 November 2017), MEDLINE Ovid (1946 to 22 November 2017), and Embase Ovid (21 December 2015 to 22 November 2017). The US National Institutes of Health Trials Registry (ClinicalTrials.gov) and the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform were searched for ongoing trials. No restrictions were placed on language or publication status when searching the electronic databases, however the search of Embase was restricted by date due to the Cochrane Centralised Search Project to identify all clinical trials and add them to CENTRAL.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing different final-impression techniques and materials for treating people with complete dentures (CD) and removable partial dentures (RPD). For CD, we included trials that compared different materials or different techniques or both. In RPD for tooth-supported conditions, we included trials comparing the same material and different techniques, or different materials and the same technique. In tooth- and tissue-supported RPD, we included trials comparing the same material and different dual-impression techniques, and different materials with different dual-impression techniques.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two review authors independently, and in duplicate, screened studies for eligibility, extracted data, and assessed the risk of bias for each included trial. We expressed results as risk ratios (RR) for dichotomous outcomes, and as mean differences (MD) or standardised mean differences (SMD) for continuous outcomes, with 95% confidence intervals (CI), using the random-effects model. We constructed 'Summary of findings' tables for the main comparisons and outcomes (participant-reported oral health-related quality of life, quality of the denture, and denture border adjustments).
MAIN RESULTS
We included nine studies in this review. Eight studies involved 485 participants with CD. We assessed six of the studies to be at high risk of bias, and two to be at low risk of bias. We judged one study on RPD with 72 randomised participants to be at high risk of bias.Overall, the quality of the evidence for each comparison and outcome was either low or very low, therefore, results should be interpreted with caution, as future research is likely to change the findings.Complete denturesTwo studies compared the same material and different techniques (one study contributed data to a secondary outcome only); two studies compared the same technique and different materials; and four studies compared different materials and techniques.One study (10 participants) evaluated two stage-two step, Biofunctional Prosthetic system (BPS) using additional silicone elastomer compared to conventional methods, and found no evidence of a clear difference for oral health-related quality of life, or quality of the dentures (denture satisfaction). The study reported that BPS required fewer adjustments. We assessed the quality of the evidence as very low.One study (27 participants) compared selective pressure final-impression technique using wax versus polysulfide elastomeric (rubber) material. The study did not measure quality of life or dentures, and found no evidence of a clear difference between interventions in the need for adjustments (RR 0.81, 95% CI 0.38 to 1.70). We assessed the quality of the evidence as very low.One study compared two stage-two step final impression with alginate versus silicone elastomer. Oral health-related quality of life measured by the OHIP-EDENT seemed to be better with silicone (MD 7.20, 95% CI 2.71 to 11.69; 144 participants). The study found no clear differences in participant-reported quality of the denture (comfort) after a two-week 'confirmation' period, but reported that silicone was better for stability and chewing efficiency. We assessed the quality of the evidence as low.Three studies compared single-stage impressions with alginate versus two stage-two step with elastomer (silicone, polysulfide, or polyether) impressions. There was no evidence of a clear difference in the OHIP-EDENT at one month (MD 0.05, 95% CI -2.37 to 2.47; two studies, 98 participants). There was no evidence of a clear difference in participant-rated general satisfaction with dentures at six months (MD 0.00, 95% CI -8.23 to 8.23; one study, 105 participants). We assessed the quality of the evidence as very low.One study compared single-stage alginate versus two stage-two step using zinc-oxide eugenol, and found no evidence of a clear difference in OHIP-EDENT (MD 0.50, 95% CI -2.67 to 3.67; 39 participants), or general satisfaction (RR 3.15, 95% CI 0.14 to 72.88; 39 participants) at six months. We assessed the quality of the evidence as very low.Removable partial denturesOne study randomised 72 participants and compared altered-cast technique versus one-piece cast technique. The study did not measure quality of life, but reported that most participants were satisfied with the dentures and there was no evidence of any clear difference between groups for general satisfaction at one-year follow-up (low-quality evidence). There was no evidence of a clear difference in number of intaglio adjustments at one year (RR 1.43, 95% CI 0.61 to 3.34) (very low-quality evidence).
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
We conclude that there is no clear evidence that one technique or material has a substantial advantage over another for making complete dentures and removable partial dentures. Available evidence for the relative benefits of different denture fabrication techniques and final-impression materials is limited and is of low or very low quality. More high-quality RCTs are required.
Topics: Dental Impression Materials; Dental Impression Technique; Denture Design; Denture Retention; Denture, Partial, Removable; Dentures; Humans; Mouth, Edentulous; Quality of Life; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
PubMed: 29617037
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD012256.pub2 -
Journal of Prosthodontic Research Apr 2020The digitization of the dental field has been vigorously promoted in recent years. An impression using an intraoral scanner is considered to significantly change future... (Review)
Review
PURPOSE
The digitization of the dental field has been vigorously promoted in recent years. An impression using an intraoral scanner is considered to significantly change future dental treatment. The purpose of this review is to evaluate accuracy and practicality of various intraoral scanners and verification method of intraoral scanners.
STUDY SELECTION
This review was based on articles searched through the MEDLINE and PubMed databases. The main keywords that were employed during the search were "Oral Scanner, Intraoral Scanners, Desktop Scanner, and Digital Impression".
RESULT
It was reported that illuminance and color temperature affected trueness and precision of intraoral scanners. The repeatability of intraoral scanners indicated the possibility of producing fixed prostheses within the range of being partially edentulous. It is considered difficult to use intraoral scanners in fabricating cross-arch fixed prostheses. However, with intraoral scanners, it may be considered possible to fabricate mouth guards and dentures equivalent to those of desktop scanners. Current intraoral scanner scans are considered more comfortable than traditional impressions that use irreversible hydrocolloid and elastomeric impression materials.
CONCLUSION
Since the intraoral scanner is an evolving device, further improvement in accuracy is expected in the future. In addition, verification of the accuracy of intraoral scanners must be conducted accordingly.
Topics: Computer-Aided Design; Dental Impression Materials; Dental Impression Technique; Dental Prosthesis Design; Imaging, Three-Dimensional; Models, Dental
PubMed: 31474576
DOI: 10.1016/j.jpor.2019.07.010 -
Marine Drugs Dec 2018Hydrocolloids were the first elastic materials to be used in the dental field. Elastic impression materials include reversible (agar-agar), irreversible (alginate)... (Review)
Review
Hydrocolloids were the first elastic materials to be used in the dental field. Elastic impression materials include reversible (agar-agar), irreversible (alginate) hydrocolloids and synthetic elastomers (polysulfides, polyethers, silicones). They reproduce an imprint faithfully, providing details of a high definition despite the presence of undercuts. With the removal of the impression, being particularly rich in water, the imprints can deform but later adapt to the original shape due to the elastic properties they possess. The advantages of using alginate include the low cost, a better tolerability on the part of the patient, the ease of manipulation, the short time needed for execution, the instrumentation and the very simple execution technique and possibility of detecting a detailed impression (even in the presence of undercuts) in a single step. A comprehensive review of the current literature was conducted according to the PRISMA guidelines by accessing the NCBI PubMed database. Authors conducted a search of articles in written in English published from 2008 to 2018. All the relevant studies were included in the search with respect to the characteristics and evolution of new marine derived materials. Much progress has been made in the search for new marine derived materials. Conventional impression materials are different, and especially with the advent of digital technology, they have been suffering from a decline in research attention over the last few years. However, this type of impression material, alginates (derived from marine algae), have the advantage of being among the most used in the dental medical field.
Topics: Agar; Alginates; Animals; Colloids; Dental Impression Materials; Dental Impression Technique; Humans; Materials Testing; Surface Properties; Tooth
PubMed: 30597945
DOI: 10.3390/md17010018 -
Compendium of Continuing Education in... Mar 2022Conventional impressions are the benchmark for any new replication technique due to the demonstrated accuracy of PVS and polyether impression materials.1 However, it is...
Conventional impressions are the benchmark for any new replication technique due to the demonstrated accuracy of PVS and polyether impression materials.1 However, it is well known that throughout the impression process there are potential risks to final accuracy, including setting of the impression material, removal of the impression, and fabrication of the stone model.2-4 Despite the documented accuracy of PVS and polyether impressions, studies have repeatedly shown that most impressions sent to dental laboratories have some sort of deficiency. One study evaluated 193 FPD impressions made by 41 dentists immediately after they arrived at 11 dental laboratories and reported that 50.7 percent of all the impressions had voids or tears in the finish line area, 40.4 percent had air bubbles at the margin line, and 26.9 percent had both.5 Thus, although impression material has documented accuracy, making an accurate impression involves more than just the precision of the material.
Topics: Dental Impression Materials; Dental Impression Technique
PubMed: 35272463
DOI: No ID Found -
Clinical and Experimental Dental... Jun 2023To compare the accuracy of five different tooth-implant impression techniques. (Review)
Review
PURPOSE
To compare the accuracy of five different tooth-implant impression techniques.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
In this in vitro, experimental study, an acrylic model containing one bone-level Straumann dental implant at the site of maxillary first molar and an adjacent second premolar prepared for a porcelain fused to metal restoration was used. Impressions were made from the model using five different one-step tooth-implant impression techniques including scanning with an intraoral scanner, occlusal matrix, wax relief, closed-tray, and open-tray techniques. Each technique was repeated 15 times. The impressions were poured with dental stone, and the obtained casts were scanned by a laboratory scanner. The scan file of each technique was compared with the scan file of the original acrylic model by Geomagic Design X software. Data were analyzed by one-way analysis of variance, and Tamhane's post-hoc test (α = 0.05).
RESULTS
For dental implant, intraoral scanning had the highest accuracy (0.1004 mm ) followed by open-tray (0.1914 mm ), occlusal matrix (0.2101 mm ), closed-tray (0.2422 mm ), and wax relief (0.2585 mm ) techniques (p < 0.05). For the prepared tooth, wax relief (0.0988 mm ) had the highest accuracy followed by occlusal matrix (0.1211 mm ), open-tray (0.1663 mm ), closed-tray (0.1737 mm ), and intraoral scanning (0.4903 mm ) technique (p < 0.05). For both dental implant and prepared tooth, occlusal matrix (0.2431 mm ) had the highest accuracy followed by open-tray (0.2574 mm ), wax relief (0.2693 mm ), closed-tray (0.2862 mm ), and intraoral scanning (0.3192 mm ) technique (p > 0.05).
CONCLUSION
The compared simultaneous tooth-implant impression techniques had comparable accuracy with no significant difference.
Topics: Humans; Dental Implants; Dental Impression Technique; Dental Impression Materials; Dimensional Measurement Accuracy; Models, Dental
PubMed: 37042090
DOI: 10.1002/cre2.737 -
Journal of Prosthodontics : Official... Oct 2021To investigate the effect of impression technique (conventional preliminary alginate and digital scan) and operator experience in impression making (experienced in...
PURPOSE
To investigate the effect of impression technique (conventional preliminary alginate and digital scan) and operator experience in impression making (experienced in digital and conventional, experienced in conventional and inexperienced in digital, and inexperienced in conventional and digital) on impression time, satisfaction and stress levels, and the preference of the operators.
MATERIAL AND METHODS
One patient was assigned for each of the 60 operators, who were experienced in impression techniques at different levels (Group 1: experienced in conventional and digital, Group 2: experienced in conventional and inexperienced in digital, Group 3: inexperienced in conventional and digital). They made conventional impressions (irreversible hydrocolloid) and digital scans (Trios 3) from the same patient. The impression times were recorded at each step (patient registration, maxillary arch, mandibular arch, and bite registration) and in total. A visual analog scale (VAS) was used for the operator satisfaction for applicability, comfort, and hygiene; the State-Trait Anxiety Inventory form (STAI-TX1) was used for stress, and a questionnaire was completed to measure the operator's impression preference. The data were analyzed with a 2-way ANOVA and Chi-square test (α = 0.05).
RESULTS
A significant interaction was found between the operator experience in impression making and the impression technique on time for maxillary and mandibular arch impressions and total time (p ≤ 0.002). Operator experience and impression technique interaction had a significant effect on comfort and average VAS scores (p ≤ 0.016). Whereas, no significant effect of this interaction was found on stress (p ≥ 0.195). Operator experience in impression making had a significant effect on applicability (p < 0.001), and the impression technique had a significant effect on hygiene VAS scores (p < 0.001). Operators in Group 1 and Group 3 preferred the digital scans, however, operators in Group 2 had no preference (p = 0.022).
CONCLUSION
Operator experience in impression making and impression technique had varying effects on clinician's impression time, comfort, applicability, hygiene, and preference. Operators needed less time for the impressions they were experienced with. Operator stress level was not affected by the operator experience in impression making and the impression technique. Dental students and operators experienced in both techniques were satisfied with the digital scans and they preferred digital scans. Operators experienced with conventional impressions were satisfied with conventional impressions but didn't have a preference for the impression type.
Topics: Alginates; Computer-Aided Design; Dental Impression Materials; Dental Impression Technique; Humans; Imaging, Three-Dimensional; Jaw Relation Record; Models, Dental; Patient Reported Outcome Measures; Surveys and Questionnaires
PubMed: 33533132
DOI: 10.1111/jopr.13340 -
Hua Xi Kou Qiang Yi Xue Za Zhi = Huaxi... Dec 2022This work aimed to synthesize a novel injectable alginate impression material and evaluate its accuracy.
OBJECTIVES
This work aimed to synthesize a novel injectable alginate impression material and evaluate its accuracy.
METHODS
Certain proportions of sodium alginate, trisodium phosphate dodecahydrate, potassium fluorotitanate, diatomaceous earth, and other ingredients were dissolved in water and mixed evenly with a planetary centrifugal mixer to obtain a certain viscosity base paste. Certain proportions of calcium sulfate hemihydrate, magnesium oxide, glycerin, and polyethylene glycol (PEG) 400 were mixed evenly with a planetary centrifugal mixer to obtain the reactor paste with the same viscosity as the base paste. The base and reactor pastes were poured into a two-cylinder cartridge at a 2∶1 volume ratio. A gun device was used to accomplish mixing by compressing materials into a mixing tip. The samples were divided into three groups: injectable alginate impression materials (IA group) as the experimental group, and Jeltrate alginate impression materials (JA group) and Silagum-putty/light addition silicone rubber impression materials (SI group) as the two control groups.
RESULTS
Scanning electron microscopy (SEM) showed that the injectable alginate impression materials had a denser structure and fewer bubbles than the commercial alginate impression material. The accuracy of the three kinds of impression materials was evaluated by 3D image superposition. The deviations between the three test group models and the standard model (trueness) were 49.58 μm±1.453 μm (IA group), 54.75 μm±7.264 μm (JA group), and 30.92 μm±1.013 μm (SI group). The deviations of the models within each test group (precision) were 85.79 μm±8.191 μm (IA group), 97.65 μm±11.060 μm (JA group), and 56.51 μm±4.995 μm (SI group). Significant differences in trueness and precision were found among the three kinds of impression materials (<0.05).
CONCLUSIONS
The accuracy of the new injectable alginate impression material was better than that of the traditional powder-type alginate impression material but worse than that of the addition silicone rubber impression materials. The novel injec-table alginate impression material demonstrated good operation performance and impression accuracy, showing broad application prospect.
Topics: Alginates; Silicone Elastomers; Dental Impression Materials; Powders
PubMed: 36416318
DOI: 10.7518/hxkq.2022.06.006 -
Indian Journal of Dental Research :... Oct 20233D printing technology is replacing manual fabrication in all fields. 3D-printed impression trays should be assessed as they could replace conventional impression trays... (Comparative Study)
Comparative Study
BACKGROUND
3D printing technology is replacing manual fabrication in all fields. 3D-printed impression trays should be assessed as they could replace conventional impression trays in the future.
AIM
In-vitro comparison and evaluation of the dimensional stability and retention strength of impressions to custom impression trays fabricated using conventional method and additive technology.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
A maxillary edentulous auto-polymerizing acrylic resin model served as the master model. Two moulds were prepared from the master model in order to obtain 12 casts. One cast was scanned for 3D printing digital light processing (DLP) and fused deposition modelling (FDM) 24 impression trays using polylactic acid (PLA). Twelve casts were used to fabricate light cure impression trays. Polyvinyl-siloxane impressions were made on the master model using 36 impression trays and 18 trays each were used to assess dimensional stability and retention strength.
RESULTS
In dimensional stability analysis, one sample t-test revealed a statistically significant difference between each group and the master model followed by a one-way ANOVA. There were significant differences, but the difference was less with FDM trays (P < 0.05). In retention strength analysis, one-way Analysis of variance (ANOVA) revealed statistically significant difference between each group and post-hoc test revealed specific difference, the highest with FDM trays (P < 0.05).
CONCLUSION
Dimensional changes were observed at 30 minutes and 72 hours. Lesser dimensional changes were observed when impressions were made using FDM trays followed by DLP and light cure trays. The mean retention strength seen in descending order was FDM, followed by DLP and light cure trays. The best retention strength was noticed when impressions were made using FDM trays.
Topics: Dental Impression Technique; Dental Impression Materials; Printing, Three-Dimensional; Polyvinyls; Siloxanes; Humans; In Vitro Techniques; Models, Dental; Materials Testing
PubMed: 38739826
DOI: 10.4103/ijdr.ijdr_519_23 -
Implant Dentistry Dec 2017The objective was to provide a comprehensive systematic review about the accuracy of digital implant impression in comparison with the conventional implant impression... (Review)
Review
PURPOSE
The objective was to provide a comprehensive systematic review about the accuracy of digital implant impression in comparison with the conventional implant impression approach.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
PubMed, Google Scholar and Cochrane databases were used to classify the related articles with no year limitation in 3 stages by 2 reviewers. Finally, 10 articles were included based on inclusion and exclusion criteria.
RESULTS
Five articles supported the use of intraoral scanners in implant dentistry. The two in vivo pilot studies showed that digital scanning is not reliable and could not be used in clinical routine.
CONCLUSION
Because each study included in this review has its unique methodology and design, it is therefore early to conclude whether to use digital scanners for clinical practice or not. More well-conducted in vitro and clinical trials studies are recommended to investigate the accuracy of intraoral scanners.
Topics: Computer-Aided Design; Dental Implants; Dental Impression Materials; Dental Impression Technique; Humans; Models, Dental
PubMed: 29095786
DOI: 10.1097/ID.0000000000000683