| Literature DB >> 23039395 |
Sampath Kumar Tejo1, Anil G Kumar, Vivekanand S Kattimani, Priti D Desai, Sandeep Nalla, Krishna Chaitanya K.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The introduction of different interocclusal recording materials has put clinicians in dilemma that which material should be used in routine clinical practice for precise recording and transferring of accurate existing occlusal records for articulation of patient's diagnostic or working casts in the fabrication of good satisfactory prosthesis. In the era of developing world of dentistry the different materials are introduced for interocclusal record with different brand names because of this; the utility of the material is confusing for successful delivery of prosthesis with lack of in vitro or in vivo studies which will predict the property of the material with utility recommendations. PURPOSE OF THE STUDY: The aim of this multicenter research is to evaluate the time dependent linear dimensional stability of three types of interocclusal recording materials; which gives very clear idea to clinicians in regard to its usage in routine practice and recommendations for usage of the different materials. Also to find out ideal time for articulation of three types of interocclusal recording materials with accuracy. MATERIALS ANDEntities:
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2012 PMID: 23039395 PMCID: PMC3489718 DOI: 10.1186/1746-160X-8-27
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Head Face Med ISSN: 1746-160X Impact factor: 2.151
Figure 1Travelling microscope.
Figure 2Schematic diagram of blockreproduction.
Figure 3Schematic diagram showing ruledsurface of die.
Figure 4Master die with raiser.
Figure 5Test samples-yellow polyether-blue middlecolumn ZnoE-blue Polyvinyl siloxane.
Showing the master chartof average data offour centers obtained duringstudy
| 1 | 24.742 | 24.728 | 24.735 | 24.713 | |
| 2 | 24.791 | 24.79 | 24.756 | 24.74 | |
| 3 | 24.681 | 24.644 | 24.663 | 24.594 | |
| 4 | 24.749 | 24.731 | 24.69 | 24.704 | |
| 5 | 24.751 | 24.715 | 24.685 | 24.712 | |
| 6 | 24.775 | 24.761 | 24.741 | 24.671 | |
| 7 | 24.579 | 24.532 | 24.587 | 24.579 | |
| 8 | 24.729 | 24.676 | 24.682 | 24.662 | |
| 9 | 24.81 | 24.804 | 24.765 | 24.761 | |
| 10 | 24.795 | 24.779 | 24.761 | 24.774 | |
| 1 | 24.738 | 24.737 | 24.734 | 24.717 | |
| 2 | 24.728 | 24.728 | 24.702 | 24.682 | |
| 3 | 24.714 | 24.716 | 24.701 | 24.675 | |
| 4 | 24.746 | 24.749 | 24.737 | 24.706 | |
| 5 | 24.751 | 24.744 | 24.731 | 24.71 | |
| 6 | 24.753 | 24.749 | 24.726 | 24.711 | |
| 7 | 24.726 | 24.722 | 24.709 | 24.687 | |
| 8 | 24.766 | 24.753 | 24.735 | 24.703 | |
| 9 | 24.73 | 24.715 | 24.698 | 24.691 | |
| 10 | 24.735 | 24.725 | 24.699 | 24.668 | |
| 1 | 24.704 | 24.644 | 24.638 | 24.612 | |
| 2 | 24.71 | 24.666 | 24.64 | 24.608 | |
| 3 | 24.706 | 24.663 | 24.649 | 24.622 | |
| 4 | 24.672 | 24.662 | 24.613 | 24.599 | |
| 5 | 24.72 | 24.648 | 24.638 | 24.602 | |
| 6 | 24.68 | 24.641 | 24.567 | 24.566 | |
| 7 | 24.691 | 24.654 | 24.64 | 24.625 | |
| 8 | 24.722 | 24.671 | 24.635 | 24.617 | |
| 9 | 24.736 | 24.665 | 24.624 | 24.611 | |
| 10 | 24.781 | 24.649 | 24.655 | 24.627 | |
Showing the comparison ofthe distance between horizontallines at different timeintervals for three interocclusalrecording materials using ANOVA
| | ||||
| F = 0.93 p = 0.44, NS | F = 3.42 p < 0.05, S | F = 6.35 p < 0.05, S | F = 6.36 p < 0.05, S |
p ≤ 0.05 -significant(S), p ≤ 0.001 -highly significant(HS), p > 0.05 -not significant(NS).
Showing the comparison ofdimensional stability between threeinterocclusal recording materials atdifferent hours by usingMann Whitney test
| p = 0.86 (NS) | ||||
| p = 0.003, (S) | ||||
| NS | p = 0.000 < 0.001 (HS) | p = 0.000 < 0.001 (HS) | p = 0.000 p < 0.001 (HS) |
p ≤ 0.05 -significant(S), p ≤ 0.001 -highly significant(HS), p > 0.05 -not significant(NS).
Showing the comparison ofdimensional stability of threeinterocclusal recording materials atdifferent hours using ANOVA
| 24.705 ± 0.020 | |||
| 24.656 ± 0.010 | |||
| 24.626 ± 0.024 | |||
| 24.607 ± 0.017 | |||
| F = 0.911 p = 0.45 NS | F = 15.5 p < 0.05 S | F = 55.92, p < 0.05 S |
p ≤ 0.05 -significant(S), p ≤ 0.001 -highly significant(HS), p > 0.05 -not significant(NS).
Figure 6Showing the comparison ofdimensional stability of threeinterocclusal recording materials atdifferent hours using ANOVA.