• 한국치위생학회지
• /
• 제8권2호
• /
• pp.53-66
• /
• 2008

There was to purpose of this study improves analyzing cause that prosthesis brings bite engaging that is inaccurate in patient's mouth, when supposed that all conducts that do in operatory and dental laboratory are perfect. Impression did check bite by alginate impression material and polymerization style silicon impression material that use usually in presence at a sickbed Irreversibility, hydrocolloid, alginate impression material washed in flowing water and poured anhydrite after wait about 8 minutes so that region that charge interest after impression check bite may become undoing. And hydrophile property addition polymerization style impression material poured anhydrite after blow 30 considering impression material dwell time and H2 gas occurrence time (5~15 minute) after have washed in flowing water. I got each 7 models, result that manufactures total 28 and measures by third dimension measuring instrument (Meteo, Korea) following sequence curing in tray holder and floor 1, By Alginate impression when is hardened in tray holder and when is hardened in the floor after do check bite, SPH 4, SPH5 all as there is synonymy appeared(P<0.05). By in case do not use average 0.1741 in case use tray holder in 0.0447 SPH5s in case do not use average 0.2838 pastas in case use tray holder in SPH4 0.0309, When did not use both SPH4 and SPH5 tray holder, when used tray holder, 1 appeared more greatly. 2. By amity sex addition polymerization style silicon impression when is hardened in tray holder after do check bite and when is hardened in the floor SPH 4, a11 of the SPH5s very big synonymy be(P>0.05). And in case use tray holder in 0.000657 pasta SPH5s in case do not use average 0.000129 pastas in case use tray holder in SPH4 average 0.000114 pastas, by in case do not use 0.000757, I appeared more greatly when used tray when did not use both SPH4 and SPH5 tray holder, but 1 appeared is not level to keep in mind(Table 8~9). 3 SPH4 was looked very big mindfulness in model that manufacture doing impression check bite by Alginate and model that do impression check bite by amity sex accessory penalty silicon without using tray holder(P< 0.001). I use tray holder and SPH4 did not appear synonymy in model that manufacture doing impression check bite by Alginate and model that do impression check bite by amity sex accessory penalty silicon(P>0.05). Study finding of above when see synthesis Alginate certainly tray holder use must and I could know that hardening method does not exert big influence on volume stability if remove impression sieve of excess because amity sex accessory penalty silicon passes over tray, Also, Alginate impression material previewed can get heading a conspiracy style that volume stability of accessory penalty silicon impression material degree is if use tray holder.

• 대한치과보철학회지
• /
• 제42권1호
• /
• pp.11-20
• /
• 2004

Problem : The several studies were reported to the effects of individual tooth tray with the parallel tooth, but not reported to the effect of individual tooth tray with severe undercut in impression making. Purpose : The purpose of this study is to examine the effect of individual tooth tray; 1) the accuracy of impression in terms of distance. 2) reproducibility of pocket. Material and methods : In this study, a metal model with 3 teeth including tooth prepared 30-degree undercut and gingival crevice of the depth 5mm, width 0.4mm was cast. Impressions of the metal model were taken in 5 times used 4 kinds of impression materials with individual tooth tray and another impression taking were made with conventional method without individual tooth, used same materials, procedure. The stone models were made. Distances between abutments were measured with a Micromeasurescoup-mm. Result : The following results were obtained ; 1. In the comparisonof inter-abutment distance between parallel tooth without individual tooth tray, 4elastomeric materials have not significant difference to the metal model(p>0.05). 2. In the comparisonof inter-abutment distance with undercut tooth without individual tooth tray, 4elastomeric materials have a significant difference to the metal model(p<0.05), especially polyether's dimensional change is large. 3. If individual tooth tray was used to take impression in abutment teeth with severe undercut, more stable results was achieved easily than conventional method. (p>0.05). 4. It is not true that the pressure of impression material with individual tooth tray increased to gingival sulcus. Conclusion : By the results, I knew the fact that individual tooth tray was useful impression method on the teeth with severe undercut for the dimensional stability. Also, I could not confirm the fact that individual tooth tray would increase the penetrating pressure into cervice.

• The Journal of Advanced Prosthodontics
• /
• 제1권2호
• /
• pp.63-67
• /
• 2009

STATEMENT OF PROBLEM. Use of custom tray and tray adhesive is clinically recommended for elastomeric impression material. However there is not clear mention of drying time of tray adhesive in achieving appropriate bonding strength of tray material and impression material. PURPOSE. This study is to investigate an appropriate drying time of tray adhesives by evaluating tensile bonding strength between two types of polyvinylsiloxane impression materials and resin tray, according to various drying time intervals of tray adhesives, and with different manufacturing company combination of impression material and tray adhesive. MATERIAL AND METHODS. Adhesives used in this study were Silfix (Dentsply Caulk, Milford, Del, USA) and VPS Tray Adhesive (3M ESPE, Seefeld, Germany) and impression materials were Aquasil Ultra (monophase regular set, Dentsply Caulk, Milford, Del, USA) and Imprint II Garant (regular body, 3M ESPE, Seefeld, Germany). They were used combinations from the same manufacture and exchanged combinations of the two. The drying time was designed to air dry, 5 minutes, 10 minutes, 15 minutes, 20 minutes, and 25 minutes. Total 240 of test specimens were prepared by auto-polymerizing tray material(Instant Tray Mix, Lang, Wheeling, Il, USA) with 10 specimens in each group. The specimens were placed in the Universal Testing machine (Instron, model 3366, Instron Corp, University avenue, Nowood, MA, USA) to perform the tensile test (cross head speed 5 mm/min). The statistically efficient drying time was evaluated through ANOVA and Scheffe test. All the tests were performed at 95% confidence level. RESULTS. The results revealed that at least 10 minutes is needed for Silfix-Aquasil, and 15 minutes for VPS Tray Adhesive-Imprint II, to attain an appropriate tensile bonding strength. VPS Tray Adhesive-Imprint II had a superior tensile bonding strength when compared to Silfix-Aquasil over 15 minutes. Silfix-Aquasil had a superior bonding strength to VPS Tray Adhesive-Aquasil, and VPS Tray Adhesive-Imprint II had a superior tensile bonding strength to Silfix-Imprint II at all drying periods. CONCLUSION. Significant increase in tensile bonding strength with Silfix-Aquasil and VPS Tray adhesive-Imprint II combination until 10 and 15 minutes respectively. Tray adhesive-impression material combination from the same company presented higher tensile bonding strength at all drying time intervals than when using tray adhesive-impression material of different manufactures.

• 대한치과보철학회지
• /
• 제33권1호
• /
• pp.13-23
• /
• 1995

The purpose of this study is to inquire about the effects of individual tray design and impression method on the border extension and contour of denture. 10 students at the dentistry college who have normal occlusion and symmetric facial form and normal facial muscle activity were selected. The tray was designed three types (large, medium, small tray). After border molding was done by dentist and operator, final impression was taken. The length of impression body and width of border were measured by a vernier caliper on the cast. The obtained results were as follows : 1. As the tray border was shortened, the length of impression body and width of border was short (P<0.01). 2. When the impression was taken with the small tray, the length of impression body was short in passive border molding than active border molding. 3. When the medium tray was used, the width of impression body was short in passive border molding than active border molding.

• 대한치과보철학회지
• /
• 제48권1호
• /
• pp.48-54
• /
• 2010

연구 목적: 보편화된 임플란트 치료의 장기적인 성공을 위해서는 임플란트와 상부 보철물의 연결 시 완전한 수동적 적합을 이루는 것이 중요하며, 이를 위해서는 정확하게 인상 채득하는 것이 필요하다. 이 연구에서는 임플란트 고정체 수준 인상 채득 방법 중 인상체 제거 후 인상용 코핑이 인상체에 남아있는 open tray 인상법과 구강 내에 남아있는 closed tray 인상법, 그리고 인상 채득 시 사용될 수 있는 여러 트레이에 대해 비교 연구해 보고자 하였다. 연구 재료 및 방법: 실험 모형은 하악 악궁 형태로 열중합형 아크릴릭 레진을 이용하여 제작하였고, vertical gap을 관찰할 20 mm 간격의 기준 구조물을 제작한 후 이를 이용하여 실험 모형에 임플란트 유사체를 매몰하였다. 실험군은 트레이 레진으로 제작한 개인 트레이, 폴리카보네이트 기성 트레이 그리고 금속 기성 트레이 등의 3가지 트레이를 이용하였고, closed tray 인상법과 open tray 인상법의 2가지 인상 채득법에 따라 5개 군으로 나누었다. 그리고 위치에 따른 오차를 관찰하기 위해 시편 모형을 전치부, 구치부로 다시 나누어 총 10개의 실험군을 구성하였다. 1군당 총 9개의 시편을 제작하였고, 시편에 기준 구조물을 한 쪽 지대주만 20 Ncm으로 고정시킨 후 관찰하는 1-screw test를 이용하여 반대쪽의 임플란트 유사체와 지대주와의 gap을 입체 광학 현미경을 이용하여 관찰하였다. 1시편당총6부위를 측정하였고, 3회씩 측정하여 동일한 결과를 얻었을 때 수치를 기록하여 통계 처리하였다. 결과: Closed tray 인상법 사용 시 폴리카보네이트 기성 트레이와 개인 트레이 간에 유의한 차이를 보였지만, open tray 인상법 사용 시 폴리카보네이트 기성 트레이와 개인 트레이 간에 유의한 차이를 보이지 않았다. 폴리카보네이트 기성 트레이를 이용한 인상 채득 시 open tray 인상법과 closed tray 인상법 간에 유의한 차이를 보였고 (P<.05), 폴리카보네이트 트레이를 이용한 closed tray 인상법을 개인 트레이를 이용한 open tray 인상법과 비교 시 전치부, 구치부 모두에서 유의한 차이를 보였다 (P<.05). 결론: 폴리카보네이트 기성 트레이를 사용 시에는 open tray 인상법이 더 추천되는 바이며, 생체 외 실험의 한계성에 유의해야 하며, 정확한 임플란트 고정체 수준 인상 채득에 대해 더 많은 연구가 필요하다고 사료된다.

• The Journal of Advanced Prosthodontics
• /
• 제9권4호
• /
• pp.287-293
• /
• 2017

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.

• The Journal of Advanced Prosthodontics
• /
• 제10권4호
• /
• pp.265-270
• /
• 2018

PURPOSE. The purpose of this in vitro study was to evaluate the accuracy of a new implant impression technique using bite impression coping and a dual arch tray. MATERIALS AND METHODS. Two implant fixtures were placed on maxillary left second premolar and first molar area in dentoform model. The model with two fixtures was used as the reference. The impression was divided into 2 groups, n=10 each. In group 1, heavy/light body silicone impression was made with pick up impression copings and open tray. In group 2, putty/light body silicone impression was made with bite impression copings and dual arch tray. The reference model and the master casts with implant scan bodies were scanned by a laboratory scanner. Surface tessellation language (STL) datasets from test groups was superimposed with STL dataset of reference model using inspection software. The three-dimensional deviation between the reference model and impression models was calculated and illustrated as a color-map. Data was analyzed by independent samples T-test of variance at ${\alpha}=.05$. RESULTS. The mean 3D implant deviations of pick up impression group (group 1) and dual arch impression group (group 2) were 0.029 mm and 0.034 mm, respectively. The difference in 3D deviations between groups 1 and 2 was not statistically significant (P=.075). CONCLUSION. Within limitations of this study, the accuracy of implant impression using a bite impression coping and dual arch tray is comparable to that of conventional pick-up impression.

• 대한치과보철학회지
• /
• 제39권4호
• /
• pp.351-365
• /
• 2001

For accurate impression taking, accurate impression material, solid individual tray, and bond strength between impression materials and resin tray are important factors. The purpose of this study was to evaluate tensile bond strength of rubber impression materials to various tray resin materials. This study tested the time dependent tensile bond strength between commercial brands or poly ether, polysulfide, additional silicone impression materials and commercial brands of self curing tray resin. light activited tray resin when applying adhesive Resin specimens were made with 20mm in diameter, 2mm in thickness. 1 made total 360 specimens, 10 per each group and the tensile bond strength was measured by using the Instron($M100EC^{(R)}$, Mecmesin Co., England). The results were as follows ; Comparisons of various impression materials. 1. In case of Impregum $F^{(R)}$, the bond strength of tray resin was decreased in order of SR $Ivolen^{(R)}$, Ostron $100^{(R)}$ Instant tray $mix^{(R)}$, $Lightplast^{(R)}$. All groups excluding Ostron $100^{(R)}$, Instant tray $mix^{(R)}$ are significant difference (p<0.05). Drying time after applying adhesive, the tensile bond strength of tray resin was insignificantly decreased in order of 10 min drying time group. 1 min drying time group. 5 min drying time group. 2. In case of Permlastic $regular^{(R)}$ the bond strength of tray resin was insignificantly decreased in order of Ostron $100^{(R)}$. SR $Ivolen^{(R)}$, Instant tray $mix^{(R)}$ $Lightplast^{(R)}$. About drying time after applying adhesive, the tensile bond strength of tray resin was significantly decreased in order of 5 min drying time group, 10 min drying time group, 1 min drying time group(p<0.05). 3. In case of Exaflex $regular^{(R)}$. the bond strength of tray resin was decreased in order of $Lightplast^{(R)}$, SR $Ivolen^{(R)}$, Instant tray $mix^{(R)}$, Ostron $100^{(R)}$. $Lightplast^{(R)}$ was significant difference(p<0.05). About drying time after applying adhesive, the tensile bond strength of tray resin was decreased in order of 5 min drying time group, 10 min drying time group, 1 min drying time group(p<0.05). Especially 5 min ding time group was significant difference(p<0.05). According to the results of this study, we can see the greatest tensile bond strength when using Impregrm $F^{(R)}$ and Permlastic $regular^{(R)}$ with self curing tray resin, when using Exaflex $regular^{(R)}$ with light activated tray resin In my opinion, adhesive should be dried more than 5 min before impression taking to achieve the greatest tensile bond strength.

• 대한치과보철학회지
• /
• 제27권2호
• /
• pp.131-141
• /
• 1989

This study was designed to investigate the fitness of stock tray in Korean adults. 107 dental students (male: 87, female: 20) who have normal occlusion and symmetric facial fom were selected. The upper and lower stock tray (Osungtray, Osung Co., Korea) fit with dental arch were selected for taking irreversible hydrocolloid impression. The author measured the thickness of impression material about two items, that is, width and length on the flange of stock tray. Several measuring points on the dental arches and palatal area were checked with Goldman Fox prove (Hu-Friedy, U.S.A.). The obtained results were as follows: 1. The width of impression material on buccal flange of upper and lower trays were narrower than any other measuring point, but the thickness of impression material on the palatal area of upper stock tray was the widest of all measuring points. 2. The length on buccal flange of lower stock tray was shorter, but the length on tray flange of lower stock tray at lingual frenum area was longer. 3. On upper dental arch, the upper extra-large tray was used in 53% of subjects, but upper small tray was not used. 4. On lower dental arch, the large tray was used in 55% of subjects. 5. There was not adequate tray on upper dental arch in 4 subjects.

• 대한치과보철학회지
• /
• 제37권5호
• /
• pp.567-580
• /
• 1999

Accurate reproduction of intraoral tissue is essential in the fabrication of fixed prosthesis. This selection of impression material and method is very important. In this study, vinyl polysiloxane type impression material $Panasil^{(R)}$ was used. Three impression methods ; one-step technique, individual tray technique, and individual tooth tray technique using the vinyl polysiloxane type bite registration material $Futar^{(R)}$ Occlusion, were used to take horizontal and vertical impression. Improved stone models were fabricated. The amount of occlusal surface discrepaneies, interabutment distance discrepancies, amount of marginal defect were evaluated with the $X-PLAN360d^{(R)}$ and photoscanning. The results were as follows. 1. There was no significant difference in occlusal surface according to the directions and techniques of impression taking. 2. There was no significant difference in interabutment distance discrepancies according to the directions and techniques of impression taking 3. There was no significant difference in marginal discrepancies according to the direction of impression taking but there was significant difference between one-step technique and individual tray technique, individual tooth tray technique (P<0.05). Taken together, these results suggest that individual tray technique and individual tooth tray technique are more accurate for impression taking than one-step technique.