Michael S McCracken1, David R Louis2, Mark S Litaker1, Helena M Minyé3, Thomas Oates4, Valeria V Gordan5, Don G Marshall6, Cyril Meyerowitz7, Gregg H Gilbert1. 1. Department of Clinical and Community Sciences, School of Dentistry, University of Alabama at Birmingham, Birmingham, AL. 2. Private practice of general dentistry with HealthPartners, Woodbury, MN. 3. Private practice of general dentistry, Odessa and Fort Worth, TX. 4. School of Dentistry, University of Texas Health Science Center at San Antonio, San Antonio, TX. 5. Restorative Dental Sciences Department, Operative Dentistry Division, College of Dentistry, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL. 6. Private practice of general dentistry, Spokane, WA. 7. Eastman Institute for Oral Health, University of Rochester, Rochester, NY.
Abstract
PURPOSE: To: (1) determine which impression and gingival displacement techniques practitioners use for single-unit crowns on natural teeth; and (2) test whether certain dentist and practice characteristics are significantly associated with the use of these techniques. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Dentists participating in the National Dental Practice-Based Research Network were eligible for this survey study. The study used a questionnaire developed by clinicians, statisticians, laboratory technicians, and survey experts. The questionnaire was pretested via cognitive interviewing with a regionally diverse group of practitioners. The survey included questions regarding gingival displacement and impression techniques. Survey responses were compared by dentist and practice characteristics using ANOVA. RESULTS: The response rate was 1777 of 2132 eligible dentists (83%). Regarding gingival displacement, most clinicians reported using either a single cord (35%) or dual cord (35%) technique. About 16% of respondents preferred an injectable retraction technique. For making impressions, the most frequently used techniques and materials are: poly(vinyl siloxane), 77%; polyether, 12%; optical/digital, 9%. A dental auxiliary or assistant made the final impression 2% of the time. Regarding dual-arch impression trays, 23% of practitioners report they typically use a metal frame tray, 60% use a plastic frame, and 16% do not use a dual-arch tray. Clinicians using optical impression techniques were more likely to be private practice owners or associates. CONCLUSIONS: This study documents current techniques for gingival displacement and making impressions for crowns. Certain dentist and practice characteristics are significantly associated with these techniques.
PURPOSE: To: (1) determine which impression and gingival displacement techniques practitioners use for single-unit crowns on natural teeth; and (2) test whether certain dentist and practice characteristics are significantly associated with the use of these techniques. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Dentists participating in the National Dental Practice-Based Research Network were eligible for this survey study. The study used a questionnaire developed by clinicians, statisticians, laboratory technicians, and survey experts. The questionnaire was pretested via cognitive interviewing with a regionally diverse group of practitioners. The survey included questions regarding gingival displacement and impression techniques. Survey responses were compared by dentist and practice characteristics using ANOVA. RESULTS: The response rate was 1777 of 2132 eligible dentists (83%). Regarding gingival displacement, most clinicians reported using either a single cord (35%) or dual cord (35%) technique. About 16% of respondents preferred an injectable retraction technique. For making impressions, the most frequently used techniques and materials are: poly(vinyl siloxane), 77%; polyether, 12%; optical/digital, 9%. A dental auxiliary or assistant made the final impression 2% of the time. Regarding dual-arch impression trays, 23% of practitioners report they typically use a metal frame tray, 60% use a plastic frame, and 16% do not use a dual-arch tray. Clinicians using optical impression techniques were more likely to be private practice owners or associates. CONCLUSIONS: This study documents current techniques for gingival displacement and making impressions for crowns. Certain dentist and practice characteristics are significantly associated with these techniques.
Authors: Vamsi Krishna Ch; Nidhi Gupta; K Mahendranadh Reddy; N Chandra Sekhar; Venkata Aditya; G V K Mohan Reddy Journal: J Clin Diagn Res Date: 2013-08-01
Authors: Michael S McCracken; David R Louis; Mark S Litaker; Helena M Minyé; Rahma Mungia; Valeria V Gordan; Don G Marshall; Gregg H Gilbert Journal: J Am Dent Assoc Date: 2016-08-01 Impact factor: 3.634
Authors: Valeria V Gordan; Cynthia W Garvan; Joshua S Richman; Jeffrey L Fellows; D Brad Rindal; Vibeke Qvist; Marc W Heft; O Dale Williams; Gregg H Gilbert Journal: Oper Dent Date: 2009 Nov-Dec Impact factor: 2.440
Authors: Sonia K Makhija; Gregg H Gilbert; D Brad Rindal; Paul Benjamin; Joshua S Richman; Daniel J Pihlstrom; Vibeke Qvist Journal: BMC Oral Health Date: 2009-10-15 Impact factor: 2.757
Authors: Wynne E Norton; Ellen Funkhouser; Sonia K Makhija; Valeria V Gordan; James D Bader; D Brad Rindal; Daniel J Pihlstrom; Thomas J Hilton; Julie Frantsve-Hawley; Gregg H Gilbert Journal: J Am Dent Assoc Date: 2014-01 Impact factor: 3.634
Authors: Michael S McCracken; Mark S Litaker; Ashley J George; Scott Durand; Sepideh Malekpour; Don G Marshall; Cyril Meyerowitz; Lauren Carter; Valeria V Gordan; Gregg H Gilbert Journal: J Am Dent Assoc Date: 2017-08-16 Impact factor: 3.634
Authors: Michael S McCracken; Mark S Litaker; Valeria V Gordan; Thomas Karr; Ellen Sowell; Gregg H Gilbert Journal: J Prosthodont Date: 2018-11-22 Impact factor: 2.752
Authors: Nathaniel C Lawson; Mark S Litaker; Ellen Sowell; Valeria V Gordan; Rahma Mungia; Kenneth R Ronzo; Ba T Lam; Gregg H Gilbert; Michael S McCracken Journal: J Prosthet Dent Date: 2019-10-04 Impact factor: 3.426
Authors: Michael S McCracken; Mark S Litaker; Alexandra E S Thomson; Alan Slootsky; Gregg H Gilbert Journal: J Prosthodont Date: 2020-01-11 Impact factor: 2.752