The Journal of Korean Academy of Prosthodontics (대한치과보철학회지)

The Korean Academy of Prosthodonitics (대한치과보철학회)
권호 표지

DIMENSIONAL STABILITY OF IMPRESSION BODY USING SILICONE INDEX TOOTH TRAY IMPRESSION SYSTEM

Silicone Index Tooth Tray를 이용한 인상체의 체적안정성에 대한 연구

  • Lee Kyu-Young (Department of Dentistry, College of Wonju Medicine, Yonsei University) ;
  • Jeong Seung-Mi (Department of Dentistry, College of Wonju Medicine, Yonsei University) ;
  • Shim June-Sung (Department of Prosthodontics, College of Dentistry, Yonsei University) ;
  • Choi Byung-Gap (Department of Prosthodontics, College of Dentistry, Yonsei University) ;
  • Lee Keun-Woo (Department of Prosthodontics, College of Dentistry, Yonsei University)
  • 이규영 (연세대학교 원주의과대학 치과학교실) ;
  • 정승미 (연세대학교 원주의과대학 치과학교실) ;
  • 심준성 (연세대학교 치과대학 치과보철학교실) ;
  • 최병갑 (연세대학교 치과대학 치과보철학교실) ;
  • 이근우 (연세대학교 치과대학 치과보철학교실)
  • Published : 2005.10.01
Download PDF
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

Statement of problem: Silicone Index Tooth Tray impression system which does not use gingicord has a shortcoming. It takes time to remove internal wall of Silicone Index Tooth Tray for space of wash impression material. Purpose: This study was to evaluate whether providing certain space to impression body can prevent from doing complicated laboratory work. Material and methods: After mounting metal dies with shoulder and chamfer margins arbiturarily, SITT was produced using $Blu-mousse^(R)$. In one experimental group, wash impression was taken using $Fit-tester^(R)$ without removing interior surface of SITT and in the other group, wash impression was taken using $Fit-tester^(R)$ providing 0.5mm space in the SITT and then compared the differences in two groups. Results: 1. There was no significant difference between a group which did not allow space and a group which granted equal 0.5mm space. 2. There was no significant difference between gingival diameter, occlusal diameter of metal die that has shoulder margin and gingival diameter, occlusal diameter of metal die that has chamfer margin. 3. There was no significant difference between a group which did not take pick-up impression and a group which took pick-up impression through relining method using SITT 4. There was no significant difference between a group that poured immediately after taking primary impression and a group that poured after removing poured stone die. Conclusions: When taking an impression of an abutment using SITT impression system, it is considered to obtain clinically identical results between a group that did not grant a 0.5mm space within SITT for wash impression and a group which invest a space. Furthermore, it is considered possible to produce an individual die through secondary pouring.

Keywords

References

  1. Hansen PA, Tira DE, Barlow J. Current methods of finish-line exposure by practicing prosthodontists. J Prosthet Dent 1999;8:163-170
  2. Benson BW, Bomberg TJ, Hatch RA, Hoffman W. Tissue displacement methods in fixed prosthodontics. J Prosthet Dent 2003;90:143-149 https://doi.org/10.1016/S0022-3913(03)00276-2
  3. Darby H, Darby LH III. Copper-band gingival retraction to produce void-free crown and bridge impressions. J Prosthet Dent 1973;29:513-516 https://doi.org/10.1016/0022-3913(73)90029-2
  4. Fitzig S, Feder D, Marshak B, Orstein M. An improved copper band impression technique. Quintessence Int 1985;16:851-853
  5. Lee JY, Lim JH, Cho IH. A study on Accaracy and Dimensional Stability of Impression gody according to Techniques and Directions of Impression taking. J Korean Acad Prosthodont 1999;37:567-80
  6. Livaditis GJ. The matrix impression system for fixed prosthodontics. J Prosthet Dent 1998;79:208-15 https://doi.org/10.1016/S0022-3913(98)70217-3
  7. Modica R, Mainoldi G. Secondary softening of modeling compound for copper band impressions. J Prosthet Dent 1983;49:361-362 https://doi.org/10.1016/0022-3913(83)90278-0
  8. Goldfogel MH, Bomberg TJ, Bomberg SE. Tube impressions : an alternative technique for taking difficult crown and bridge impressions with minimal gingival trauma. Quintessence lnt 1989;20:555-560
  9. LaForgia Anthony. Cordless tissue retraction for impressions for fixed prosthesis. J prosthet Dent 1967;17:379-86 https://doi.org/10.1016/0022-3913(67)90009-1
  10. Scott GK, Hawkins L, Chetwyn J, Doughty T. Check bite impressions using irreversible alginate/reversible hydrocholloid combinations. J Prosthet Dent 1997;77:83-85 https://doi.org/10.1016/S0022-3913(97)70211-7
  11. Komiyama O, Saeiki H, Kawara M, Kobayahi K, Otake S. Effect of relief space and escape holes on pressure characteristics of maxillary edentulous impressions. J Prosthet Dent 2004;91:570-576 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.prosdent.2004.03.020
  12. Bergmans L, Van Cleynenbreugel J, Wevers M, Lambrechts P. A methodology for quantitative evaluation of root canal instrumentation using microcomputed tomography. lnt Endod J 2001;34:309-318
  13. Ceyhan JA, Johnson GH, Lepe X. The effect of tray selection, viscosity of impression material, and sequence of pour on the accuracy of dies made from dual-arch impressions. J prosthet Dent 2003;90:143-149 https://doi.org/10.1016/S0022-3913(03)00276-2
  14. Williams PT, Jackson DG, Bergman W. An evaluation of the time-dependent dimensional stability of eleven elastomeric impression materials. J Prosthet Dent 1984;52:120-125 https://doi.org/10.1016/0022-3913(84)90194-X
  15. Appleby DC, Pameijer CH, Boffa J. The combined reversible hydrochooild/irreversible hydrocolloid impression system. J Prosthet Dent 1980;44:27-35 https://doi.org/10.1016/0022-3913(80)90042-6
  16. Heisler WH, Tjan AH. Accuracy and bond strength of reversible with irreversible hydrocolloid impression systems : a comparative study. J Prosthet Dent 1992;68:578-584 https://doi.org/10.1016/0022-3913(92)90369-L
  17. Lepe X, Sandrik JL, Land MF. Bond strength and accuracy of combined reversible-irreversible hydrocolloid impression systems. J Prosthet Dent 1992;67:621-627 https://doi.org/10.1016/0022-3913(92)90159-8
  18. Hunter AJ, Hunter AR. Gingival margins for crowns: a review and discus¬sions. Part Il:Discrepancies and configurations. J Prosthet Dent 1990;64:636-642 https://doi.org/10.1016/0022-3913(90)90286-L
  19. Donovan T. Prince J. An analysis of margin configurations for metal-ceramic crowns. J Prosthet Dent 1985;53:153-157 https://doi.org/10.1016/0022-3913(85)90097-6
  20. Thongthammachat S, Moore BK, Barco MT 2nd, Hovijitra S, Brown DT, Andres CJ. Dimensional accuracy of dental casts: influence of tray material, impression material, and time. J Prosthodont 2002;11:98-108 https://doi.org/10.1053/jpro.2002.125192
  21. Johnson GH, Craig RG. Accuracy of four types of rubber impression materials comparred with time of pour and a repeat pour of models. J Prosthet Dent 1985;53:484-490 https://doi.org/10.1016/0022-3913(85)90630-4