Sergio Caputi1, Giuseppe Varvara. 1. Prosthetic Dentistry, Department of Oral Sciences, University G. D'Annunzio, Chieti, Italy. s.caputi@unich.it
Abstract
STATEMENT OF PROBLEM: Dimensional accuracy when making impressions is crucial to the quality of fixed prosthodontic treatment, and the impression technique is a critical factor affecting this accuracy. PURPOSE: The purpose of this in vitro study was to compare the dimensional accuracy of a monophase, 1- and 2-step putty/light-body, and a novel 2-step injection impression technique. MATERIAL AND METHODS: A stainless steel model with 2 abutment preparations was fabricated, and impressions were made 15 times with each technique. All impressions were made with an addition-reaction silicone impression material (Aquasil) and a stock perforated metal tray. The monophase impressions were made with regular body material. The 1-step putty/light-body impressions were made with simultaneous use of putty and light-body materials. The 2-step putty/light-body impressions were made with 2-mm-thick resin-prefabricated copings. The 2-step injection impressions were made with simultaneous use of putty and light-body materials. In this injection technique, after removing the preliminary impression, a hole was made through the polymerized material at each abutment edge, to coincide with holes present in the stock trays. Extra-light-body material was then added to the preliminary impression and further injected through the hole after reinsertion of the preliminary impression on the stainless steel model. The accuracy of the 4 different impression techniques was assessed by measuring 3 dimensions (intra- and interabutment) (5-mum accuracy) on stone casts poured from the impressions of the stainless steel model. The data were analyzed by 1-way ANOVA and Student-Newman-Keuls test (alpha=.05). RESULTS: The stone dies obtained with all the techniques had significantly larger dimensions as compared to those of the stainless steel model (P<.01). The order for highest to lowest deviation from the stainless steel model was: monophase, 1-step putty/light body, 2-step putty/light body, and 2-step injection. Significant differences among all of the groups for both absolute dimensions of the stone dies, and their percent deviations from the stainless steel model (P<.01), were noted. CONCLUSIONS: The 2-step putty/light-body and 2-step injection techniques were the most dimensionally accurate impression methods in terms of resultant casts.
STATEMENT OF PROBLEM: Dimensional accuracy when making impressions is crucial to the quality of fixed prosthodontic treatment, and the impression technique is a critical factor affecting this accuracy. PURPOSE: The purpose of this in vitro study was to compare the dimensional accuracy of a monophase, 1- and 2-step putty/light-body, and a novel 2-step injection impression technique. MATERIAL AND METHODS: A stainless steel model with 2 abutment preparations was fabricated, and impressions were made 15 times with each technique. All impressions were made with an addition-reaction silicone impression material (Aquasil) and a stock perforated metal tray. The monophase impressions were made with regular body material. The 1-step putty/light-body impressions were made with simultaneous use of putty and light-body materials. The 2-step putty/light-body impressions were made with 2-mm-thick resin-prefabricated copings. The 2-step injection impressions were made with simultaneous use of putty and light-body materials. In this injection technique, after removing the preliminary impression, a hole was made through the polymerized material at each abutment edge, to coincide with holes present in the stock trays. Extra-light-body material was then added to the preliminary impression and further injected through the hole after reinsertion of the preliminary impression on the stainless steel model. The accuracy of the 4 different impression techniques was assessed by measuring 3 dimensions (intra- and interabutment) (5-mum accuracy) on stone casts poured from the impressions of the stainless steel model. The data were analyzed by 1-way ANOVA and Student-Newman-Keuls test (alpha=.05). RESULTS: The stone dies obtained with all the techniques had significantly larger dimensions as compared to those of the stainless steel model (P<.01). The order for highest to lowest deviation from the stainless steel model was: monophase, 1-step putty/light body, 2-step putty/light body, and 2-step injection. Significant differences among all of the groups for both absolute dimensions of the stone dies, and their percent deviations from the stainless steel model (P<.01), were noted. CONCLUSIONS: The 2-step putty/light-body and 2-step injection techniques were the most dimensionally accurate impression methods in terms of resultant casts.