-
Materials (Basel, Switzerland) Mar 2022To compare the three-dimensional accuracy of an open-tray and two snap on impression techniques (with and without connecting the plastic caps of the snap on impression...
To compare the three-dimensional accuracy of an open-tray and two snap on impression techniques (with and without connecting the plastic caps of the snap on impression transfers) in a full arch 6-implant model, a reference acrylic resin model of the maxilla with six implants was fabricated. Prominent geometrical triangles, in the palate area, served as reference points for a digital overlap between scans. Three impression transfer techniques were evaluated and compared: open-tray direct impression (DI), snap on impression (SpO), and connected snap on impression (SpOC). Polyether impression material was used to make 30 impressions (n = 10), and the master model and all casts were digitally scanned with a laboratory optical scanner. The obtained 3D data were converted and recorded as STL files, which were imported to a 3D inspection software program. Angular deviations (buccal, occlusal and interproximal planes) between the study casts and the reference model were measured. Data were analyzed using one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) and Tukey post hoc test, with 0.05 used as the level of significance. The 3D angular deviations from the master model revealed no significant differences between the DI and SpO impression groups, but there were significant differences in the SpOC impression group, particularly in the buccal and occlusal planes. In all groups, the 3D angular deviation between the most distal scan abutments on each side of the model was significantly different from all other areas when compared to the master model. Within the limits of this study, it is possible to conclude that the indirect closed tray snap on impression technique with unconnected plastic caps exhibited the same three-dimensional accuracies as the direct open tray technique. The indirect closed tray snap on impression technique with connected plastic caps was less accurate than either the indirect closed tray snap on impression technique with unconnected plastic caps or the direct open tray technique. In the case of full arch implant supported prostheses, inaccuracies may be expected in the most distal implants for all the three impression techniques evaluated in this study. Further in vitro and in vivo research is required.
PubMed: 35329555
DOI: 10.3390/ma15062103 -
European Journal of Dentistry May 2022The aim of this study was to evaluate and compare penetration ability and tensile strength among vinylsiloxanether (VSE), polyether (PE), and polyvinylsiloxane (PVS)...
OBJECTIVES
The aim of this study was to evaluate and compare penetration ability and tensile strength among vinylsiloxanether (VSE), polyether (PE), and polyvinylsiloxane (PVS) elastomeric dental impression materials.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
The models were constructed for penetration ability test by simulated gingival sulcus width and moist environment. The 0.05, 0.1, and 0.2 mm of simulated gingival sulcus widths were used. Each simulated gingival sulcus width was impressed 10 repeats per one elastomeric impression material. All extension of elastomeric dental impression materials was scaled by Measuring Microscope (MM-11; Nikon, Tokyo, Japan). On the issue of the tensile strength study, the models were constructed following type 1 of the ISO 37:2017 specifications and/or type C of ASTM.D412 specifications. The two-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) and Tukey's honest significant difference test were performed in the penetration ability test. The one-way ANOVA and Dunnett's T3 test were performed in the tensile strength test. The significance level was set at 0.05.
RESULTS
PE showed the best extension into all widths of simulated sulcus followed by VSE and PVS, respectively. PVS was significantly higher in tensile strength than VSE and PE, while VSE was significantly higher than PE.
CONCLUSION
Penetration ability of elastomeric dental impression materials was depended on gingival sulcus width. The wider the sulcular width, the better the penetration ability of elastomeric dental impression materials. PE presented the best penetration ability, while the novel PVS showed highest tensile strength.
PubMed: 34852393
DOI: 10.1055/s-0041-1735793 -
Journal of Orofacial Orthopedics =... Nov 2020This study investigates the accuracy of abutment transfer with current impression materials and provides a concise overview, including other relevant factors, in order...
PURPOSE
This study investigates the accuracy of abutment transfer with current impression materials and provides a concise overview, including other relevant factors, in order to enable clinicians to make an informed decision about the optimal impression for this treatment procedure.
METHODS
In all, 96 impressions of a cadaver head with two orthodontic miniscrews in place were taken with four common impression materials by two observers and using two methods of application. After pouring with a standard type IV stone and abutment transfer, all models and the upper jaw (which had been separated from the head) were scanned in a standard model scanner (Zirkonzahn® [Zirkohnzahn GmbH, Gais, Italy] S600 ARTI) and evaluated using a computer-aided design (CAD) program (GOM-Inspect [Gesellschaft für optische Messtechnik m.b.H., Braunschweig, Germany]). The deviations were measured at six points per screw and statistically evaluated with SPSS® (IBM, Chicago, IL, USA).
RESULTS
Optimal values were obtained with biphasic polyvinylsiloxane, while monophasic polyvinylsiloxane, alginate and polyether also resulted in acceptable accuracy. Observer experience showed no effect and the method of application had only a minor effect on accuracy.
CONCLUSIONS
Within the limitations of this study, it seems that all impression materials are suitable for miniscrew abutment transfer, provided that methods of intraoral adaptation of the orthodontic appliance can be employed. If higher accuracy is needed or for clinicians with less experienced, a biphasic polyvinylsiloxane impression with the putty-wash technique should be used as this combination reduces setting time. The most cost-effective version, alginate, can be used if the consequences of greater deviations can be handled. Caution is advised with polyether if undercuts are present.
Topics: Dental Impression Materials; Dental Impression Technique; Germany; Italy; Models, Dental
PubMed: 32897413
DOI: 10.1007/s00056-020-00245-3 -
Prilozi (Makedonska Akademija Na... Sep 2017A quality-made dental impression is a prerequisite for successful fixed-prosthodontic fabrication and is directly dependent on the dimensional stability, accuracy and... (Review)
Review
A quality-made dental impression is a prerequisite for successful fixed-prosthodontic fabrication and is directly dependent on the dimensional stability, accuracy and flexibility of the elastomeric impression materials, as well as on the appropriately used impression techniques. The purpose of this paper is to provide a literature review of relevant scientific papers which discuss the use of various silicone impression materials, different impression techniques and to evaluate their impact on the dimensional stability and accuracy of the obtained impressions. Scientific papers and studies were selected according to the materials used, the sample size, impression technique, storage time, type of measurements and use of spacer for the period between 2002 and 2016. In the reviewed literature several factors that influence the dimensional stability and accuracy of silicone impression molds, including the choice of the type of viscosity, impression material thickness, impression technique, retention of the impression material on the tray, storage time before the casting, number of castings, hydrophilicity of the material, release of byproducts, contraction after polymerization, thermal contraction and incomplete elastic recovery were presented. The literature review confirmed the lack of standardization of methodologies applied in the research and their great diversity. All findings point to the superiority of the addition silicone compared to the condensation silicone.
Topics: Dental Casting Technique; Dental Impression Materials; Dental Impression Technique; Humans; Models, Dental; Polymerization; Silicones; Surface Properties; Viscosity
PubMed: 28991761
DOI: 10.1515/prilozi-2017-0031 -
Scientific Reports Dec 2022The aim of this study was to compare the trueness of complete- and partial-arch impressions obtained using conventional impression materials and intraoral scanners in...
The aim of this study was to compare the trueness of complete- and partial-arch impressions obtained using conventional impression materials and intraoral scanners in vivo. Full-arch impressions were taken using polyether and polyvinylsiloxane. Gypsum casts were digitized using a laboratory scanner (IM, AF). Casts obtained from polyether impressions were also scanned using an industrial blue light scanner to construct 3D reference models. Intraoral scanning was performed using CEREC Omnicam (CO) and Trios 3 (TR). Surface matching software (Atos Professional) enabled to determine the mean deviations (mean distances) from the reference casts. Statistically significant discrepancies were calculated using the Wilcoxon signed-rank test. The mean distance for trueness ranged from 0.005 mm (TR) to 0.023 mm (IM) for the full arch, from 0.001 mm (CO) to 0.068 mm (IM) for the anterior segment, and from 0.019 mm (AF) to 0.042 mm (IM) for the posterior segment. Comparing the anterior vs. the posterior segment, significantly less deviations were observed for anterior with CO (p < 0.001) and TR (p < 0.001). Full-arch comparisons revealed significant differences between AF vs. IM (p = 0.014), IM vs. CO (p = 0.002), and IM vs. TR (p = 0.001). Full-arch trueness was comparable when using Affinis and the two intraoral scanners CEREC Omnicam and Trios 3. The digital impression devices yielded higher local deviations within the complete arch. Digital impressions of the complete arch are a suitable and reliable alternative to conventional impressions. However, they should be used with caution in the posterior region.Trial registration: Registration number at the German Clinical Trial Register (04.02.2022): DRKS00027988 ( https://trialsearch.who.int/ ).
Topics: Imaging, Three-Dimensional; Models, Dental; Computer-Aided Design; Polyvinyls; Dental Impression Technique
PubMed: 36581668
DOI: 10.1038/s41598-022-26983-5 -
Prague Medical Report 2023The objective of this article is to concisely review the main clinical techniques used to make the functional impression to manufacture a removable partial denture.... (Review)
Review
The objective of this article is to concisely review the main clinical techniques used to make the functional impression to manufacture a removable partial denture. Through this review, the dentist can develop his clinical knowledge.
Topics: Humans; Denture, Partial, Removable
PubMed: 38069644
DOI: 10.14712/23362936.2023.29 -
Indian Journal of Dental Research :... 2018This review was intended to discuss the various possible modifications suggested in the literature for prosthetic steps and surgical corrective procedures in... (Review)
Review
PURPOSE
This review was intended to discuss the various possible modifications suggested in the literature for prosthetic steps and surgical corrective procedures in nonresponding or complicated cases during rehabilitation of patients with restricted mouth opening.
MATERIAL AND METHODS:
Medline, PubMed, and Google were searched electronically for articles using keywords: microstomia and treatment options for restricted mouth opening. The various articles on prosthodontic rehabilitation in microstomia were segregated. From these, various modifications in the prosthetic steps were reviewed.
RESULTS:
Oral hygiene maintenance is difficult for patient either due to limited access or due to associated lack of manual dexterity, so dental decay and periodontal problems are more extensive in such patients; hence, tooth loss is a common finding. All prosthetic procedures require wide mouth opening to carry out various steps, starting from tray placement during impression making to the final prosthesis insertion, especially removable prosthesis. Various prosthetic modifications given by authors are included in this review for each step in prosthodontic management. A total of eight stock tray designs, 12 custom tray designs, and 17 removable prosthesis designs are discussed along with fixed (either tooth-supported or implant-supported) and maxillofacial prosthesis. However, some patients require surgical intervention also for the correction of microstomia either for function or for esthetic purpose before prosthetic rehabilitation and are also enumerated here.
CONCLUSION
Among all prosthetic restorative options, removable prosthesis is most difficult for dentist to fabricate as conventional methods are either very difficult or impossible to apply. To get a more accurate final prosthesis, we need to modify these steps according to the existing case. Several modifications available are discussed here which can help while managing these patients.
Topics: Dental Implantation; Dental Impression Technique; Denture Design; Humans; Maxillofacial Prosthesis; Microstomia
PubMed: 29652018
DOI: 10.4103/ijdr.IJDR_544_16 -
Cureus Apr 2024Aim The aim of this in vitro study was to evaluate and compare the accuracy of casts made from two elastomeric impression materials (polyvinyl siloxane (PVS) and...
Aim The aim of this in vitro study was to evaluate and compare the accuracy of casts made from two elastomeric impression materials (polyvinyl siloxane (PVS) and vinylsiloxanether (VSE)) using different impression techniques on parallel and angulated implants. Materials and methods The reference model was fabricated using auto-polymerizing acrylic resin on which three implant analogs were placed of which two were parallel to each other and the third at 20-degree mesial angulation. A total of 60 impressions were made of which 30 were by using PVS and 30 by VSE. For each material, 10 impressions were made by closed tray technique, 10 by open tray technique and 10 by open tray with sandblasting and adhesive coating of the impression copings technique. The inter-analog distances of the casts obtained were evaluated and compared with the reference model by a vision measuring machine. Data were analyzed using analysis of variance (ANOVA), Tukey's Honest Significant Difference (HSD) post hoc and independent samples t-test. Results When the inter-analog distances of the duplicate casts were compared with the reference model, the mean error rates for parallel implants decreased in the order of closed tray technique, open tray technique and open tray with sandblasting and adhesive coating of the impression copings technique for both PVS and VSE impression materials. Similarly, the same order was observed for angulated implants for both impression materials. Using the closed tray technique, there was no statistically significant difference in the accuracy of the cast between the two materials for parallel implants (P = 0.525) and also no significant difference between the two materials for angulated implants (P = 0.307). Similarly, there was no statistically significant difference in the accuracy of the cast between the two materials for parallel implants (P = 0.455) and also no significant difference between the two materials for angulated implants (P = 0.519) using the open tray technique. Whereas for the open tray with sandblasting and adhesive coating of the impression copings technique, VSE produced a more accurate cast than PVS for parallel implants and was statistically significant (P = 0.033); however, there was no significant difference between the two materials for angulated implants (P = 0.375). Conclusion For parallel implants, VSE by an open tray with sandblasting and adhesive coating of the impression copings technique produced a more accurate cast than PVS. For angulated implants, there was no significant difference between the two materials and it was only the technique that significantly affected the accuracy of the cast.
PubMed: 38807829
DOI: 10.7759/cureus.59193 -
Materials (Basel, Switzerland) Apr 2020The advent of new technologies in the field of medicine and dentistry is giving improvements that lead the clinicians to have materials and procedures able to improve... (Review)
Review
The advent of new technologies in the field of medicine and dentistry is giving improvements that lead the clinicians to have materials and procedures able to improve patients' quality of life. In dentistry, the last digital techniques offer a fully digital computerized workflow that does not include the standard multiple traditional phases. The purpose of this study is to evaluate all clinical trials and clinical randomized trials related to the digital or dental impression technique in prosthetic dentistry trying to give the readers global information about advantages and disadvantages of each procedure. Data collection was conducted in the main scientific search engines, including articles from the last 10 years, in order to obtain results that do not concern obsolete impression techniques. Elsevier, Pubmed and Embase have been screened as sources for performing the research. The results data demonstrated how the working time appears to be improved with digital workflow, but without a significant result (P = 0.72596). The papers have been selected following the Population Intervention Comparison Outcome (PICO) question, which is related to the progress on dental impression materials and technique. The comparison between dentists or practitioners with respect to classic impression procedures, and students open to new device and digital techniques seem to be the key factor on the final impression technique choice. Surely, digital techniques will end up supplanting the analogical ones altogether, improving the quality of oral rehabilitations, the economics of dental practice and also the perception by our patients.
PubMed: 32340384
DOI: 10.3390/ma13081982 -
Journal of International Society of... 2020The purpose of this study is to compare digital and conventional impression methods by preclinical students in terms of time and ease and to evaluate their preferences...
AIMS AND OBJECTIVES
The purpose of this study is to compare digital and conventional impression methods by preclinical students in terms of time and ease and to evaluate their preferences and future expectations.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
Twenty volunteered, 2 year preclinical students (11 females and 9 males) participated in this study. Students took digital and conventional impressions of the left lower first molar which was made full ceramic crown preparation and opposite full arch from a typodont model (Frasaco, Frasaco GmbH, Tettnang, Germany). They used intraoral scanner (CEREC Omnicam, Sirona Dental GmbH, Bensheim, Germany) for digital impression and also used additional type (Express XT Penta H, 3M ESPE, Seefeld, Germany) and condensation type (Zetaplus, Zhermack SpA, Badia Polesine, Italy) silicones for conventional impression. Their taking impression time was measured. Before taking impression and after taking impression, two kinds of questionnaires were conducted to students about their preference, ease of impression methods, and their future expectations. Statistical analysis was performed by IBM SPSS 23 and Excel 2010 version. Differences between conventional and digital impression in terms of time were analyzed by student's-t paired test and effect of gender was analyzed by students's-t independent test.
RESULTS
There were statistically significant differences between digital and conventional impression methods in terms of taking impression and total impression time ( < 0.001). But there wasn't any statistically significant difference between two methods in terms of preparation time. About 85% of students preferred the digital impression method and also 85% of students found that the digital impression method was easy. 95% of students expected to find intraoral scanner in the clinic where working first time.
CONCLUSIONS
As a result of this study, it has been seen that the students preferred the digital impression method to the conventional impression method and found that the digital impression method was easier.
PubMed: 33042880
DOI: 10.4103/jispcd.JISPCD_330_18