L C Breeding1, D L Dixon. 1. Department of Restorative Dentistry, University of Mississippi School of Dentistry, Jackson, Miss., USA. lbreeding@sod.umsmed.edu
Abstract
STATEMENT OF PROBLEM: Dual-arch trays are often used to make simultaneous impressions of a prepared tooth and the opposing teeth. Many dentists are concerned with the accuracy of the casts generated from this type of impression. PURPOSE: The purpose of this investigation was to compare the accuracy of stone casts of a prepared tooth generated using 2 types of dual-arch impression tray/impression material combinations. MATERIAL AND METHODS: The maxillary left first molar on a dentoform mounted on an articulator was prepared for a full-coverage gold crown. Ten impressions were made with either a plastic (P) or metal (M) tray and a polyether (PE) or vinyl polysiloxane (VPS) impression material. Each impression was cast in improved dental stone, and the buccolingual dimension of the die was measured at the midpoint of the buccal and lingual gingival margins. The prepared tooth (T) served as the control. The data were analyzed using a 2-factor analysis of variance (ANOVA) alpha=.05. RESULTS: The P/VPS combination (10.673 mm) produced the largest die, followed by P/PE (10.602), T (10.508), M/PE (10.484), and M/VPS (10.472). The 2-factor ANOVA showed a significant difference between the tray types but not between the impression materials. CONCLUSION: The metal trays produced dies smaller than the tooth, and the plastic trays produced dies that were larger.
STATEMENT OF PROBLEM: Dual-arch trays are often used to make simultaneous impressions of a prepared tooth and the opposing teeth. Many dentists are concerned with the accuracy of the casts generated from this type of impression. PURPOSE: The purpose of this investigation was to compare the accuracy of stone casts of a prepared tooth generated using 2 types of dual-arch impression tray/impression material combinations. MATERIAL AND METHODS: The maxillary left first molar on a dentoform mounted on an articulator was prepared for a full-coverage gold crown. Ten impressions were made with either a plastic (P) or metal (M) tray and a polyether (PE) or vinyl polysiloxane (VPS) impression material. Each impression was cast in improved dental stone, and the buccolingual dimension of the die was measured at the midpoint of the buccal and lingual gingival margins. The prepared tooth (T) served as the control. The data were analyzed using a 2-factor analysis of variance (ANOVA) alpha=.05. RESULTS: The P/VPS combination (10.673 mm) produced the largest die, followed by P/PE (10.602), T (10.508), M/PE (10.484), and M/VPS (10.472). The 2-factor ANOVA showed a significant difference between the tray types but not between the impression materials. CONCLUSION: The metal trays produced dies smaller than the tooth, and the plastic trays produced dies that were larger.
Authors: Luciana Martinelli Santayana de Lima; Gilberto Antonio Borges; Luiz Henrique Burnett Junior; Ana Maria Spohr Journal: J Int Oral Health Date: 2014-06-26
Authors: Victor Díaz-Flores García; Yolanda Freire; Susana David Fernández; Beatriz Tomás Murillo; Margarita Gómez Sánchez Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health Date: 2022-04-08 Impact factor: 4.614