In Vivo Study of the Accuracy of Dual-arch Impressions

Overview

Journal J Int Oral Health

Date 2014 Aug 2

PMID 25083032

Citations 5

Authors

Luciana Martinelli Santayana de Lima

Gilberto Antonio Borges

Luiz Henrique Burnett Junior

Ana Maria Spohr

Affiliations

Soon will be listed here.

Abstract

Background: This study evaluated in vivo the accuracy of metal (Smart®) and plastic (Triple Tray®) dual-arch trays used with vinyl polysiloxane (Flexitime®), in the putty/wash viscosity, as well as polyether (Impregum Soft®) in the regular viscosity.

Materials And Methods: In one patient, an implant-level transfer was screwed on an implant in the mandibular right first molar, serving as a pattern. Ten impressions were made with each tray and impression material. The impressions were poured with Type IV gypsum. The width and height of the pattern and casts were measured in a profile projector (Nikon). The results were submitted to Student's t-test for one sample (α = 0.05).

Results: For the width distance, the plastic dual-arch trays with vinyl polysiloxane (4.513 mm) and with polyether (4.531 mm) were statistically wider than the pattern (4.489 mm). The metal dual-arch tray with vinyl polysiloxane (4.504 mm) and with polyether (4.500 mm) did not differ statistically from the pattern. For the height distance, only the metal dual-arch tray with polyether (2.253 mm) differed statistically from the pattern (2.310 mm).

Conclusion: The metal dual-arch tray with vinyl polysiloxane, in the putty/wash viscosities, reproduced casts with less distortion in comparison with the same technique with the plastic dual-arch tray. The plastic or metal dual-arch trays with polyether reproduced cast with greater distortion. How to cite the article: Santayana de Lima LM, Borges GA, Burnett LH Jr, Spohr AM. In vivo study of the accuracy of dual-arch impressions. J Int Oral Health 2014;6(3):50-5.

Citing Articles

Impression evaluation and laboratory use for single-unit crowns: Findings from The National Dental Practice-Based Research Network.

McCracken M, Litaker M, George A, Durand S, Malekpour S, Marshall D J Am Dent Assoc. 2017; 148(11):788-796.e4.

PMID: 28822536 PMC: 5793929. DOI: 10.1016/j.adaj.2017.06.015.

Effect of technique and impression material on the vertical misfit of a screw-retained, three-unit implant bridge: An study.

Haghi H, Shiehzadeh M, Nakhaei M, Ahrary F, Sabzevari S J Indian Prosthodont Soc. 2017; 17(1):41-47.

PMID: 28216844 PMC: 5308081. DOI: 10.4103/0972-4052.197937.

Impression Techniques Used for Single-Unit Crowns: Findings from the National Dental Practice-Based Research Network.

McCracken M, Louis D, Litaker M, Minye H, Oates T, Gordan V J Prosthodont. 2017; 27(8):722-732.

PMID: 28076661 PMC: 5794617. DOI: 10.1111/jopr.12577.

Evaluation of surface detail reproduction, dimensional stability and gypsum compatibility of monophase polyvinyl-siloxane and polyether elastomeric impression materials under dry and moist conditions.

Vadapalli S, Atluri K, Putcha M, Kondreddi S, Kumar N, Tadi D J Int Soc Prev Community Dent. 2016; 6(4):302-8.

PMID: 27583217 PMC: 4981931. DOI: 10.4103/2231-0762.186795.

In vivo precision of conventional and digital methods for obtaining quadrant dental impressions.

Ender A, Zimmermann M, Attin T, Mehl A Clin Oral Investig. 2015; 20(7):1495-504.

PMID: 26547869 DOI: 10.1007/s00784-015-1641-y.

References

Gordon G, Johnson G, Drennon D . The effect of tray selection on the accuracy of elastomeric impression materials. J Prosthet Dent. 1990; 63(1):12-5. DOI: 10.1016/0022-3913(90)90257-d. View

Ceyhan J, Johnson G, Lepe X . The effect of tray selection, viscosity of impression material, and sequence of pour on the accuracy of dies made from dual-arch impressions. J Prosthet Dent. 2003; 90(2):143-9. DOI: 10.1016/s0022-3913(03)00276-2. View

Campbell S . Comparison of conventional paint-on die spacers and those used with the all-ceramic restorations. J Prosthet Dent. 1990; 63(2):151-5. DOI: 10.1016/0022-3913(90)90098-w. View

Wilson E, Werrin S . Double arch impressions for simplified restorative dentistry. J Prosthet Dent. 1983; 49(2):198-202. DOI: 10.1016/0022-3913(83)90500-0. View

Mandikos M . Polyvinyl siloxane impression materials: an update on clinical use. Aust Dent J. 1999; 43(6):428-34. DOI: 10.1111/j.1834-7819.1998.tb00204.x. View

Davis R, Schwartz R, Hilton T . Marginal adaptation of castings made with dual-arch and custom trays. Am J Dent. 1992; 5(5):253-4. View

Larson T, Nielsen M, Brackett W . The accuracy of dual-arch impressions: a pilot study. J Prosthet Dent. 2002; 87(6):625-7. DOI: 10.1067/mpr.2002.125180. View

Adabo G, Zanarotti E, Fonseca R, Cruz C . Effect of disinfectant agents on dimensional stability of elastomeric impression materials. J Prosthet Dent. 1999; 81(5):621-4. DOI: 10.1016/s0022-3913(99)70219-2. View

Lepe X, Johnson G . Accuracy of polyether and addition silicone after long-term immersion disinfection. J Prosthet Dent. 1997; 78(3):245-9. DOI: 10.1016/s0022-3913(97)70021-0. View

10.

Carrotte P, Johnson A, Winstanley R . The influence of the impression tray on the accuracy of impressions for crown and bridge work--an investigation and review. Br Dent J. 1999; 185(11-12):580-5. DOI: 10.1038/sj.bdj.4809870. View

11.

Lu H, Nguyen B, Powers J . Mechanical properties of 3 hydrophilic addition silicone and polyether elastomeric impression materials. J Prosthet Dent. 2004; 92(2):151-4. DOI: 10.1016/j.prosdent.2004.05.016. View

12.

Nissan J, Laufer B, Brosh T, Assif D . Accuracy of three polyvinyl siloxane putty-wash impression techniques. J Prosthet Dent. 2000; 83(2):161-5. DOI: 10.1016/s0022-3913(00)80007-4. View

13.

Breeding L, Dixon D . Accuracy of casts generated from dual-arch impressions. J Prosthet Dent. 2000; 84(4):403-7. DOI: 10.1067/mpr.2000.110266. View

14.

Thongthammachat S, Moore B, Barco 2nd M, Hovijitra S, Brown D, Andres C . Dimensional accuracy of dental casts: influence of tray material, impression material, and time. J Prosthodont. 2002; 11(2):98-108. View

15.

Panichuttra R, Jones R, Goodacre C, Munoz C, Moore B . Hydrophilic poly(vinyl siloxane) impression materials: dimensional accuracy, wettability, and effect on gypsum hardness. Int J Prosthodont. 1991; 4(3):240-8. View

16.

Lane D, Randall R, Lane N, Wilson N . A clinical trial to compare double-arch and complete-arch impression techniques in the provision of indirect restorations. J Prosthet Dent. 2003; 89(2):141-5. DOI: 10.1067/mpr.2003.25. View

17.

Hung S, Purk J, Tira D, Eick J . Accuracy of one-step versus two-step putty wash addition silicone impression technique. J Prosthet Dent. 1992; 67(5):583-9. DOI: 10.1016/0022-3913(92)90151-y. View

18.

Johnson G, Chellis K, Gordon G, Lepe X . Dimensional stability and detail reproduction of irreversible hydrocolloid and elastomeric impressions disinfected by immersion. J Prosthet Dent. 1998; 79(4):446-53. DOI: 10.1016/s0022-3913(98)70160-x. View

19.

Davis R, Schwartz R . Dual-arch and custom tray impression accuracy. Am J Dent. 1991; 4(2):89-92. View

20.

Kang A, Johnson G, Lepe X, Wataha J . Accuracy of a reformulated fast-set vinyl polysiloxane impression material using dual-arch trays. J Prosthet Dent. 2009; 101(5):332-41. DOI: 10.1016/S0022-3913(09)60066-4. View