Nicole Kalberer1,2, Najla Chebib1, Wolfgang Wachter3, Hyeonjong Lee4, Frauke Müller1, Murali Srinivasan5,6. 1. Division of Gerodontology and Removable Prosthodontics, University Clinics of Dental Medicine, University of Geneva, Geneva, Switzerland. 2. Clinic of General, Special care, and Geriatric Dentistry, Center of Dental Medicine, University of Zurich, 11 Plattenstrasse, 8032, Zurich, Switzerland. 3. Ivoclar Vivadent AG, Schaan, Liechtenstein. 4. Department of Prosthodontics, School of Dentistry, Pusan National University, Pusan, South Korea. 5. Division of Gerodontology and Removable Prosthodontics, University Clinics of Dental Medicine, University of Geneva, Geneva, Switzerland. murali.srinivasan@zzm.uzh.ch. 6. Clinic of General, Special care, and Geriatric Dentistry, Center of Dental Medicine, University of Zurich, 11 Plattenstrasse, 8032, Zurich, Switzerland. murali.srinivasan@zzm.uzh.ch.
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: Despite the complexity of the edentulous anatomy, little evidence exists as to what impression techniques and materials should be employed for an optimal result. The aim of this in silico study was to evaluate the trueness of peripheral and inner seals of different edentulous jaw impressions. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Twelve maxillary edentulous participants (male = 8, female = 4; age 68.5 ± 11.7 years) participated in this study. Four different impression materials and techniques, irreversible hydrocolloid (Alginate; Blueprint X-Crème, Dentsply Sirona, PA, USA), polyvinyl siloxane impression (PVS; Aquasil Ultra+ Medium, Dentsply Sirona, PA, USA), and subsequently modified with ZnOE (PVSM) and an optical impression (Optical; 3Shape A/S, Copenhagen, Denmark), were tested against a control impression: low-fusing impression compound border molding (Kerr Corp., CA, USA) followed by a ZnOE impression (ZnOE; SS White impression paste, S.S. White Group, Gloucester, England). All impressions were scanned and analyzed using a custom-built 3D comparison software analyzing the vertical and horizontal trueness. RESULTS: The vertical discrepancy (peripheral seal) of the impression surface was significantly more true for PVSM than Alginate (p = 0.001), PVS (p = 0.019), and Optical groups (p < 0.001). Where the horizontal discrepancy (inner seal) was compared, the impression surface was more true for PVSM than Alginate (p < 0.001) and Optical (p < 0.001). PVS group was also significantly more true than Optical (p = 0.015). CONCLUSION: Impression techniques and materials may significantly influence the peripheral and inner seal of an edentulous jaw impression. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: When using a polyvinylsiloxane impression material for master edentulous impressions, a selective inner seal reline with a conventional zinc oxide eugenol impression paste can improve the inner seal.
OBJECTIVES: Despite the complexity of the edentulous anatomy, little evidence exists as to what impression techniques and materials should be employed for an optimal result. The aim of this in silico study was to evaluate the trueness of peripheral and inner seals of different edentulous jaw impressions. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Twelve maxillary edentulous participants (male = 8, female = 4; age 68.5 ± 11.7 years) participated in this study. Four different impression materials and techniques, irreversible hydrocolloid (Alginate; Blueprint X-Crème, Dentsply Sirona, PA, USA), polyvinyl siloxane impression (PVS; Aquasil Ultra+ Medium, Dentsply Sirona, PA, USA), and subsequently modified with ZnOE (PVSM) and an optical impression (Optical; 3Shape A/S, Copenhagen, Denmark), were tested against a control impression: low-fusing impression compound border molding (Kerr Corp., CA, USA) followed by a ZnOE impression (ZnOE; SS White impression paste, S.S. White Group, Gloucester, England). All impressions were scanned and analyzed using a custom-built 3D comparison software analyzing the vertical and horizontal trueness. RESULTS: The vertical discrepancy (peripheral seal) of the impression surface was significantly more true for PVSM than Alginate (p = 0.001), PVS (p = 0.019), and Optical groups (p < 0.001). Where the horizontal discrepancy (inner seal) was compared, the impression surface was more true for PVSM than Alginate (p < 0.001) and Optical (p < 0.001). PVS group was also significantly more true than Optical (p = 0.015). CONCLUSION: Impression techniques and materials may significantly influence the peripheral and inner seal of an edentulous jaw impression. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: When using a polyvinylsiloxane impression material for master edentulous impressions, a selective inner seal reline with a conventional zinc oxideeugenol impression paste can improve the inner seal.