Oliver Schaefer1, Monika Schmidt, Roland Goebel, Harald Kuepper. 1. Biomaterials Research Group, Center for Dental Medicine, Jena University Hospital-Friedrich Schiller University Jena, Jena, Germany. oliver.schaefer@med.uni-jena.de
Abstract
STATEMENT OF PROBLEM: The accuracy of impressions has been described in 1 or 2 dimensions, whereas it is most desirable to evaluate the accuracy of impressions spatially, in 3 dimensions. PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to demonstrate the accuracy and reproducibility of a 3-dimensional (3-D) approach to assessing impression preciseness and to quantitatively comparing the occlusal correctness of gypsum dies made with different impression materials. MATERIAL AND METHODS: By using an aluminum replica of a maxillary molar, single-step dual viscosity impressions were made with 1 polyether/vinyl polysiloxane hybrid material (Identium), 1 vinyl polysiloxane (Panasil), and 1 polyether (Impregum) (n=5). Corresponding dies were made of Type IV gypsum and were optically digitized and aligned to the virtual reference of the aluminum tooth. Accuracy was analyzed by computing mean quadratic deviations between the virtual reference and the gypsum dies, while deviations of the dies among one another determined the reproducibility of the method. The virtual reference was adapted to create 15 occlusal contact points. The percentage of contact points deviating within a ±10 µm tolerance limit (PDP(10) = Percentage of Deviating Points within ±10 µm Tolerance) was set as the index for assessing occlusal accuracy. Visual results for the difference from the reference tooth were displayed with colors, whereas mean deviation values as well as mean PDP(10) differences were analyzed with a 1-way ANOVA and Scheffé post hoc comparisons (α=.05). RESULTS: Objective characterization of accuracy showed smooth axial surfaces to be undersized, whereas occlusal surfaces were accurate or enlarged when compared to the original tooth. The accuracy of the gypsum replicas ranged between 3 and 6 µm, while reproducibility results varied from 2 to 4 µm. Mean (SD) PDP(10)-values were: Panasil 91% (±11), Identium 77% (±4) and Impregum 29% (±3). One-way ANOVA detected significant differences among the subjected impression materials (P<.001). CONCLUSIONS: The accuracy and reproducibility of impressions were determined by 3-D analysis. Results were presented as color images and the newly developed PDP(10)-index was successfully used to quantify spatial dimensions for complex occlusal anatomy. Impression materials with high PDP(10)-values were shown to reproduce occlusal dimensions the most accurately.
STATEMENT OF PROBLEM: The accuracy of impressions has been described in 1 or 2 dimensions, whereas it is most desirable to evaluate the accuracy of impressions spatially, in 3 dimensions. PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to demonstrate the accuracy and reproducibility of a 3-dimensional (3-D) approach to assessing impression preciseness and to quantitatively comparing the occlusal correctness of gypsum dies made with different impression materials. MATERIAL AND METHODS: By using an aluminum replica of a maxillary molar, single-step dual viscosity impressions were made with 1 polyether/vinyl polysiloxane hybrid material (Identium), 1 vinyl polysiloxane (Panasil), and 1 polyether (Impregum) (n=5). Corresponding dies were made of Type IV gypsum and were optically digitized and aligned to the virtual reference of the aluminum tooth. Accuracy was analyzed by computing mean quadratic deviations between the virtual reference and the gypsum dies, while deviations of the dies among one another determined the reproducibility of the method. The virtual reference was adapted to create 15 occlusal contact points. The percentage of contact points deviating within a ±10 µm tolerance limit (PDP(10) = Percentage of Deviating Points within ±10 µm Tolerance) was set as the index for assessing occlusal accuracy. Visual results for the difference from the reference tooth were displayed with colors, whereas mean deviation values as well as mean PDP(10) differences were analyzed with a 1-way ANOVA and Scheffé post hoc comparisons (α=.05). RESULTS: Objective characterization of accuracy showed smooth axial surfaces to be undersized, whereas occlusal surfaces were accurate or enlarged when compared to the original tooth. The accuracy of the gypsum replicas ranged between 3 and 6 µm, while reproducibility results varied from 2 to 4 µm. Mean (SD) PDP(10)-values were: Panasil 91% (±11), Identium 77% (±4) and Impregum 29% (±3). One-way ANOVA detected significant differences among the subjected impression materials (P<.001). CONCLUSIONS: The accuracy and reproducibility of impressions were determined by 3-D analysis. Results were presented as color images and the newly developed PDP(10)-index was successfully used to quantify spatial dimensions for complex occlusal anatomy. Impression materials with high PDP(10)-values were shown to reproduce occlusal dimensions the most accurately.
Authors: Rinet Dauti; Barbara Cvikl; Alexander Franz; Uwe Yacine Schwarze; Bledar Lilaj; Tina Rybaczek; Andreas Moritz Journal: BMC Oral Health Date: 2016-12-08 Impact factor: 2.757
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