» Articles » PMID: 37924203

Comparative Evaluation of Dimensional and Occlusal Accuracy of Non-Working Antagonist Casts: A Study on Different Impression Materials and 3D Printing

Abstract

BACKGROUND The aim of this study was to assess and compare the vertical/horizontal dimensions and occlusal accuracy of non-working/opposing casts obtained from three different impression materials and 3D print cast. MATERIAL AND METHODS Dentulous Master models simulating a case of a fixed dental prosthesis were mounted on an articulator (control group). Opposing mandibular casts obtained from three different impression materialsand 3-dimensional print constituted test groups , ,and , respectively. Three points, anterior vertical (AV), posterior vertical (PV), and anteroposterior (AP) were compared for dimensional accuracy among casts. Occlusal accuracy was analyzed on Medit Link software at 3 teeth (#13, #17, and #27). After calculating means for each group, the differences were calculated at probability value of P≤0.05 using the single-sample t test, ANOVA, and Tukey test. RESULTS The dimensions were significantly different from those of the mounted master models except in Gp AL(E) and Gp AL(F) at AV dimension and Gp AL(E) at AP dimension (P>0.05). A statistically significant difference of the error of means among the 4 tested groupswere detected only at 2 dimensions (AV and PV) between the Gp AL(E) and Gp 3D-C and between Gp AL(F) and Gp 3D-C groups. Other groups showed no significant differences. CONCLUSIONS The opposing casts obtained from the extended-pour alginate and alginate alternative impression materials showed higher occlusal accuracy compared to conventional alginate and 3D printed casts.

Citing Articles

Comparative Assessment of the Influence of Various Time Intervals upon the Linear Accuracy of Regular, Scannable, and Transparent Vinyl Polysiloxane-Based Bite Registration Materials for Indirect Dental Restoration Fabrication.

Alqarawi F, Al-Makramani B, Gangadharappa P, Mattoo K, Hadi M, Alamri M Polymers (Basel). 2025; 17(1.

PMID: 39795455 PMC: 11723260. DOI: 10.3390/polym17010052.

References
1.
Nassar U, Hussein B, Oko A, Carey J, Flores-Mir C . Dimensional accuracy of 2 irreversible hydrocolloid alternative impression materials with immediate and delayed pouring. J Can Dent Assoc. 2012; 78:c2. View

2.
Christensen G . Making fixed prostheses that are not too high. J Am Dent Assoc. 2006; 137(1):96-8. DOI: 10.14219/jada.archive.2006.0027. View

3.
Christensen G . Impressions are changing: deciding on conventional, digital or digital plus in-office milling. J Am Dent Assoc. 2009; 140(10):1301-4. DOI: 10.14219/jada.archive.2009.0054. View

4.
Hazeveld A, Huddleston Slater J, Ren Y . Accuracy and reproducibility of dental replica models reconstructed by different rapid prototyping techniques. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2013; 145(1):108-15. DOI: 10.1016/j.ajodo.2013.05.011. View

5.
Kumar L, Mattoo K, Jain S, Khalid I, Kota M, Baig F . A Clinical Study of 50 Partially Edentulous Patients with Fixed Partial Denture Restorations to Compare Clinical Parameters and Changes in Gingival Sulcus Width After Displacement with 2 Different Gingival Retraction Cord Materials (Cotton and.... Med Sci Monit. 2023; 29:e940098. PMC: 10152903. DOI: 10.12659/MSM.940098. View