Literature DB >> 21611728

Clinical success rates for polyether crown impressions when mixed dynamically and statically.

Marc Schmitter1, Glen H Johnson, Clovis Faggion, Christina Klose, Gergo Mitov, Frank P Nothdurft, Peter R Pospiech, Peter Rammelsberg, Brigitte Ohlmann, Stefanie Schwarz, Thomas Stober, Petra Schiller, Maria Pritsch.   

Abstract

The purpose of this study is to compare success rates of dual-viscosity impressions for two types of mixing techniques of the polyether elastomeric impression material. Additionally, influencing parameters on the success rates should be evaluated. The expectation was that there would be no difference between the success rates for the two mixing techniques. Two centres enrolled 290 subjects (727 teeth) into the trial. Patients were randomized for the two types of mixing techniques. One step, dual-viscosity impressions were made with either statically mixed Impregum Soft tray material (SAM) or dynamically mixed Impregum Penta H DuoSoft (DMM). Low viscosity Impregum Garant L DuoSoft was used for both groups. Gingival displacement involved the use of two braided cords. Full-arch trays were used exclusively. Both critical defects and operator errors were assessed for the first impression taken by trained dentists. The primary outcome was impression success. For comparison of the two mixing techniques, the odds ratio for success and the corresponding one-sided 95% confidence interval was calculated by a logistic regression model. To account for the dependence between several teeth within one patient, the method of general estimating equations was used. The overall impression success rate was 35.4%. Both mixing techniques showed equal success rates indicated by an OR of 1.0 and a lower limit of the one-sided 95% confidence interval of 0.71. Using this result to develop the corresponding interval for the difference, it could be shown that the success rate using SAM was at most 8.2% lower than that when using DMM with a probability of 95%. Multivariate logistic regression analysis of other potential influencing factors showed position of finish line (p = 0.008, supra compared to mixed), blood coagulation disorder (p = 0.021) and the level of training of the clinician (student vs dentist, p=0.008) to have an independent influence on the success rate. Dynamic mechanical mixing and the new static mixing of polyether tray material showed nearly equal success rates in the study even though success rates were comparatively low (DMM, 35.3%; SAM, 35.4%).

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2011        PMID: 21611728     DOI: 10.1007/s00784-011-0566-3

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Clin Oral Investig        ISSN: 1432-6981            Impact factor:   3.573


  16 in total

Review 1.  Trends in indirect dentistry: 5. Impression materials and techniques.

Authors:  Dominic A Stewardson
Journal:  Dent Update       Date:  2005-09

2.  Improving decision-making in restorations: evaluation of impressions and working casts.

Authors:  Gitta Radjaeipour
Journal:  J Calif Dent Assoc       Date:  2007-09

3.  Clinical evaluation of different gingival retraction cords.

Authors:  Ovul Kumbuloglu; Atilla User; Suna Toksavul; Hayal Boyacioglu
Journal:  Quintessence Int       Date:  2007-02       Impact factor: 1.677

4.  Creating precision restorations using a hand-dispensed polyether.

Authors:  Robert Margeas
Journal:  Dent Today       Date:  2009-11

5.  A prospective clinical evaluation of electronically mixed polyvinyl siloxane impression materials: results from the prosthetic "SuperStudy"--a consumer evaluation.

Authors:  G Kugel; E J Swift; J A Sorensen; J H Tucker; J T Dunne
Journal:  Compend Contin Educ Dent Suppl       Date:  1999

6.  Clinical effectiveness of mechanical-chemical tissue displacement methods.

Authors:  D J Weir; B H Williams
Journal:  J Prosthet Dent       Date:  1984-03       Impact factor: 3.426

7.  Voids in a mixed elastomeric impression material.

Authors:  J A Stackhouse
Journal:  J Prosthet Dent       Date:  1983-12       Impact factor: 3.426

8.  The influence of the mixing technique on the content of voids in two polyether impression materials.

Authors:  Roberto Di Felice; Roberto Scotti; Urs C Belser
Journal:  Schweiz Monatsschr Zahnmed       Date:  2002

9.  Pre- and post-set hydrophilicity of elastomeric impression materials.

Authors:  Konstantinos X Michalakis; Athina Bakopoulou; Hiroshi Hirayama; Dimitris P Garefis; Pavlos D Garefis
Journal:  J Prosthodont       Date:  2007-06-09       Impact factor: 2.752

10.  Clinical trial investigating success rates for polyether and vinyl polysiloxane impressions made with full-arch and dual-arch plastic trays.

Authors:  Glen H Johnson; Lloyd A Mancl; E Ricardo Schwedhelm; Douglas R Verhoef; Xavier Lepe
Journal:  J Prosthet Dent       Date:  2010-01       Impact factor: 3.426

View more
  1 in total

1.  Digital assessment of properties of the three different generations of dental elastomeric impression materials.

Authors:  Lamia Singer; Shaymaa I Habib; Heba El-Amin Shalaby; Sayed H Saniour; Christoph Bourauel
Journal:  BMC Oral Health       Date:  2022-09-05       Impact factor: 3.747

  1 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.