PURPOSE: The accuracy of dental impression taking is one major factor influencing the fit of crowns and fixed partial dentures. The aim of this study was to determine the accuracy of three-dimensional (3-D) tooth surface and subgingival tooth surface reproduction using three different silicone materials and the two-stage putty-and-wash technique. MATERIALS AND METHODS: From 24 probands, three impressions each were taken with Express STD Putty/Wash (3M ESPE), Optosil/Xantopren L (Heraeus Kulzer), and an experimental ultralight body/putty material (3M ESPE) in a randomized order. The preliminary impression was cut according to established procedures for the two-stage putty-and-wash technique. Master casts were manufactured with a standardized procedure and optically digitized. The 3-D accuracy was analyzed with a computer-aided procedure. The Express STD putty-and-wash impressions were used as a reference. Linear models were used for the statistical analysis. RESULTS:Mean deviations of 27.0 microm and -23.6 microm were found for Optosil/Xantopren L and 26.5 microm and -22.6 microm for the experimental material when analyzing 3-D surface reproduction. The tooth surface (buccal/oral) significantly influenced the accuracy of the surface reproduction. Optosil/Xantopren L showed a more complete reproduction of the subgingival tooth surface than either the experimental or reference materials. CONCLUSION: The accuracy of the 3-D tooth surface reproduction as well as the reproduction of the subgingival tooth surface was not favorably influenced when the ultralight wash material was used with established cutting procedures for the preliminary impression.
RCT Entities:
PURPOSE: The accuracy of dental impression taking is one major factor influencing the fit of crowns and fixed partial dentures. The aim of this study was to determine the accuracy of three-dimensional (3-D) tooth surface and subgingival tooth surface reproduction using three different silicone materials and the two-stage putty-and-wash technique. MATERIALS AND METHODS: From 24 probands, three impressions each were taken with Express STD Putty/Wash (3M ESPE), Optosil/Xantopren L (Heraeus Kulzer), and an experimental ultralight body/putty material (3M ESPE) in a randomized order. The preliminary impression was cut according to established procedures for the two-stage putty-and-wash technique. Master casts were manufactured with a standardized procedure and optically digitized. The 3-D accuracy was analyzed with a computer-aided procedure. The Express STD putty-and-wash impressions were used as a reference. Linear models were used for the statistical analysis. RESULTS: Mean deviations of 27.0 microm and -23.6 microm were found for Optosil/Xantopren L and 26.5 microm and -22.6 microm for the experimental material when analyzing 3-D surface reproduction. The tooth surface (buccal/oral) significantly influenced the accuracy of the surface reproduction. Optosil/Xantopren L showed a more complete reproduction of the subgingival tooth surface than either the experimental or reference materials. CONCLUSION: The accuracy of the 3-D tooth surface reproduction as well as the reproduction of the subgingival tooth surface was not favorably influenced when the ultralight wash material was used with established cutting procedures for the preliminary impression.
Authors: Stephania Caroline Rodolfo Silva; Aion Mangino Messias; Filipe de Oliveira Abi-Rached; Raphael Freitas de Souza; José Maurício Dos Santos Nunes Reis Journal: PLoS One Date: 2016-10-13 Impact factor: 3.240