The Journal of Advanced Prosthodontics

  • 제9권4호
  • /
  • Pages.287-293
  • /
  • 2017
  • /
  • 2005-7806(pISSN)
  • /
  • 2005-7814(eISSN)
대한치과보철학회 (The Korean Academy of Prosthodonitics)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

Accuracy of a separating foil impression using a novel polyolefin foil compared to a custom tray and a stock tray technique

  • Pastoret, Marie-Helene (Department of Periodontology, Endodontology and Cariology, University Center of Dental Medicine, University of Basel) ;
  • Krastl, Gabriel (Department of Conservative Dentistry and Periodontology, University of Wurzburg) ;
  • Buhler, Julia (Department of Periodontology, Endodontology and Cariology, University Center of Dental Medicine, University of Basel) ;
  • Weiger, Roland (Department of Periodontology, Endodontology and Cariology, University Center of Dental Medicine, University of Basel) ;
  • Zitzmann, Nicola Ursula (Department of Periodontology, Endodontology and Cariology, University Center of Dental Medicine, University of Basel)
  • 투고 : 2016.10.17
  • 심사 : 2017.02.07
  • 발행 : 2017.08.31
PDF 다운로드
⟨ 이전 논문 다음 논문 ⟩

초록

PURPOSE. To compare the dimensional accuracy of three impression techniques- a separating foil impression, a custom tray impression, and a stock tray impression. MATERIALS AND METHODS. A machined mandibular complete-arch metal model with special modifications served as a master cast. Three different impression techniques (n = 6 in each group) were performed with addition-cured silicon materials: i) putty-wash technique with a prefabricated metal tray (MET) using putty and regular body, ii) single-phase impression with custom tray (CUS) using regular body material, and iii) two-stage technique with stock metal tray (SEP) using putty with a separating foil and regular body material. All impressions were poured with epoxy resin. Six different distances (four intra-abutment and two inter-abutment distances) were gauged on the metal master model and on the casts with a microscope in combination with calibrated measuring software. The differences of the evaluated distances between the reference and the three test groups were calculated and expressed as mean (${\pm}SD$). Additionally, the 95% confidence intervals were calculated and significant differences between the experimental groups were assumed when confidence intervals did not overlap. RESULTS. Dimensional changes compared to reference values varied between -74.01 and $32.57{\mu}m$ (MET), -78.86 and 30.84 (CUS), and between -92.20 and 30.98 (SEP). For the intra-abutment distances, no significant differences among the experimental groups were detected. CUS showed a significantly higher dimensional accuracy for the inter-abutment distances with -0.02 and -0.08 percentage deviation compared to MET and SEP. CONCLUSION. The separation foil technique is a simple alternative to the custom tray technique for single tooth restorations, while limitations may exist for extended restorations with multiple abutment teeth.

키워드

참고문헌

  1. Zimmermann M, Mehl A, Mormann WH, Reich S. Intraoral scanning systems - a current overview. Int J Comput Dent 2015;18:101-29.
  2. Yuzbasioglu E, Kurt H, Turunc R, Bilir H. Comparison of digital and conventional impression techniques: evaluation of patients' perception, treatment comfort, effectiveness and clinical outcomes. BMC Oral Health 2014;14:10. https://doi.org/10.1186/1472-6831-14-10
  3. Joda T, Lenherr P, Dedem P, Kovaltschuk I, Bragger U, Zitzmann NU. Time efficiency, difficulty, and operator's preference comparing digital and conventional implant impressions: a randomized controlled trial. Clin Oral Implants Res 2016 Sep 5.
  4. Chochlidakis KM, Papaspyridakos P, Geminiani A, Chen CJ, Feng IJ, Ercoli C. Digital versus conventional impressions for fixed prosthodontics: A systematic review and meta-analysis. J Prosthet Dent 2016;116:184-90. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.prosdent.2015.12.017
  5. Ender A, Attin T, Mehl A. In vivo precision of conventional and digital methods of obtaining complete-arch dental impressions. J Prosthet Dent 2016;115:313-20. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.prosdent.2015.09.011
  6. Guth JF, Runkel C, Beuer F, Stimmelmayr M, Edelhoff D, Keul C. Accuracy of five intraoral scanners compared to indirect digitalization. Clin Oral Investig 2016 Jul 12.
  7. Boeddinghaus M, Breloer ES, Rehmann P, Wostmann B. Accuracy of single-tooth restorations based on intraoral digital and conventional impressions in patients. Clin Oral Investig 2015;19:2027-34. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00784-015-1430-7
  8. Hamalian TA, Nasr E, Chidiac JJ. Impression materials in fixed prosthodontics: influence of choice on clinical procedure. J Prosthodont 2011;20:153-60. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1532-849X.2010.00673.x
  9. Wadhwani CP, Johnson GH, Lepe X, Raigrodski AJ. Accuracy of newly formulated fast-setting elastomeric impression materials. J Prosthet Dent 2005;93:530-9. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.prosdent.2005.03.007
  10. Eames WB, Sieweke JC, Wallace SW, Rogers LB. Elastomeric impression materials: effect of bulk on accuracy. J Prosthet Dent 1979;41:304-7. https://doi.org/10.1016/0022-3913(79)90013-1
  11. Mansfield MA, Wilson HJ. Elastomeric impression materials. A method of measuring dimensional stability. Br Dent J 1975;139:267-72. https://doi.org/10.1038/sj.bdj.4803587
  12. Schnell R, Phillips RW. Dimensional stability of rubber base impressions and certain other factors affecting accuracy. J Am Dent Assoc 1958;57:39-48. https://doi.org/10.14219/jada.archive.1958.0248
  13. Boulton JL, Gage JP, Vincent PF, Basford KE. A laboratory study of dimensional changes for three elastomeric impression materials using custom and stock trays. Aust Dent J 1996;41:398-404. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1834-7819.1996.tb06026.x
  14. Van Noort R. Impression Materials. In: Van Noort R. Introduction to dental materials. London: Mosny Elsevier; 2007, p. 186-208.
  15. Shillingburg HT Jr, Hatch RA, Keenan MP, Hemphill MW. Impression materials and techniques used for cast restorations in eight states. J Am Dent Assoc 1980;100:696-9. https://doi.org/10.14219/jada.archive.1980.0228
  16. Clark DM, Oyen OJ, Feil P. The use of specific dental schooltaught restorative techniques by practicing clinicians. J Dent Educ 2001;65:760-5.
  17. Chee WW, Donovan TE. Polyvinyl siloxane impression materials: a review of properties and techniques. J Prosthet Dent 1992;68:728-32. https://doi.org/10.1016/0022-3913(92)90192-D
  18. Chugh A, Arora A, Singh VP. Accuracy of different puttywash impression techniques with various spacer thickness. Int J Clin Pediatr Dent 2012;5:33-8. https://doi.org/10.5005/jp-journals-10005-1131
  19. Nissan J, Laufer BZ, Brosh T, Assif D. Accuracy of three polyvinyl siloxane putty-wash impression techniques. J Prosthet Dent 2000;83:161-5. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0022-3913(00)80007-4
  20. Shiozawa M, Takahashi H, Finger WJ, Iwasaki N. Effects of the space for wash materials on sulcus depth reproduction with addition-curing silicone using two-step putty-wash technique. Dent Mater J 2013;32:150-5. https://doi.org/10.4012/dmj.2012-228
  21. Manoj SS, Cherian KP, Chitre V, Aras M. A comparative evaluation of the linear dimensional accuracy of four impression techniques using polyether impression material. J Indian Prosthodont Soc 2013;13:428-38. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13191-013-0255-9
  22. Terry DA, Tric O, Blatz M, Burgess JO. The custom impression tray: fabrication and utilization. Dent Today 2010;29:132, 134-5.
  23. Singh K, Sahoo S, Prasad KD, Goel M, Singh A. Effect of different impression techniques on the dimensional accuracy of impressions using various elastomeric impression materials: an in vitro study. J Contemp Dent Pract 2012;13:98-106.
  24. Saunders WP, Sharkey SW, Smith GM, Taylor WG. Effect of impression tray design and impression technique upon the accuracy of stone casts produced from a putty-wash polyvinyl siloxane impression material. J Dent 1991;19:283-9. https://doi.org/10.1016/0300-5712(91)90072-7
  25. Nissan J, Rosner O, Bukhari MA, Ghelfan O, Pilo R. Effect of various putty-wash impression techniques on marginal fit of cast crowns. Int J Periodontics Restorative Dent 2013;33:e37-42. https://doi.org/10.11607/prd.0713
  26. Dugal R, Railkar B, Musani S. Comparative evaluation of dimensional accuracy of different polyvinyl siloxane putty-wash impression techniques-in vitro study. J Int Oral Health 2013;5:85-94.
  27. Kumar V, Aeran H. Evaluation of effect of tray space on the accuracy of condensation silicone, addition silicone and polyether impression materials: an in vitro study. J Indian Prosthodont Soc 2012;12:154-60. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13191-012-0124-y
  28. Nissan J, Gross M, Shifman A, Assif D. Effect of wash bulk on the accuracy of polyvinyl siloxane putty-wash impressions. J Oral Rehabil 2002;29:357-61. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1365-2842.2002.00820.x
  29. Rathee S, Eswaran B, Eswaran M, Prabhu R, Geetha K, Krishna G, Jagadeshwari. A comparison of dimensional accuracy of addition silicone of different consistencies with two different spacer designs - In-vitro study. J Clin Diagn Res 2014;8:ZC38-41.
  30. Stober T, Johnson GH, Schmitter M. Accuracy of the newly formulated vinyl siloxanether elastomeric impression material. J Prosthet Dent 2010;103:228-39. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0022-3913(10)60035-2
  31. Donovan TE, Chee WW. A review of contemporary impression materials and techniques. Dent Clin North Am 2004;48:vi-vii, 445-70.
  32. Luthardt RG, Walter MH, Weber A, Koch R, Rudolph H. Clinical parameters influencing the accuracy of 1- and 2-stage impressions: a randomized controlled trial. Int J Prosthodont 2008;21:322-7.
  33. Bomberg TJ, Hatch RA, Hoffman W Jr. Impression material thickness in stock and custom trays. J Prosthet Dent 1985;54:170-2. https://doi.org/10.1016/0022-3913(85)90278-1
  34. Syrek A, Reich G, Ranftl D, Klein C, Cerny B, Brodesser J. Clinical evaluation of all-ceramic crowns fabricated from intraoral digital impressions based on the principle of active wavefront sampling. J Dent 2010;38:553-9. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jdent.2010.03.015

피인용 문헌

  1. Final Retention of Recemented Dental Casting Luted with Different Resin Cements vol.32, pp.1, 2017, https://doi.org/10.30699/jidai.32.1.2.1