To compare the dimensional accuracy of dies obtained by using different impression techniques - An in vitro study
- 1. International Journal of Dental Science and Innovative Research (IJDSIR)
Description
Abstract
Introduction: This in-vitro study was undertaken to compare the dimensional accuracy of dies obtained with different impression techniques.
Objectives
1. To compare dimensional accuracy of dies obtained with putty reline technique.
2. To compare dimensional accuracy of dies obtained with multiple mix technique.
3. To compare dimensional accuracy of dies obtained with medium body technique.
Materials and Methods: Vinyl polysiloxane in putty, heavy body, medium body and light body consistency were used. A stainless steel die with specific dimensions was used for making the samples. Two indentations were made on the top and lateral side of the die. 60 samples were made with putty reline technique, multiple mix technique and medium body technique. Three readings were recorded for each sample and average of the three were compared amongst themselves. Linear measurements were done using profile projector. Data was collected and analysed statistically.
Results: Study showed that the dimensional accuracy of dies obtained from monophase technique showed least significant difference from the master die followed by the multiple mix technique and putty reline technique.
Files
YOGESH.pdf
Additional details
Software
References
- 1. Kumar M Praveen, Patil Suneel G, Dheeraj Bhandari, Reddy Keshav, Goel Dinker, Krishna Gopi. A comparison of accuracy of matrix impression system with putty reline technique and multiple mix technique. Journal of International Oral Health 2015;7(6):48-53. 2. Nissan Joseph, Laufer BZ, Brosh T, Assif D. Accuracy of three polyvinyl siloxane putty- wash impression techniques. J Prosthet Dent 2000;83(2):161-5. 3. Lacy A M, Fukui H, Bellman T, Jendresen MD. T. Time – dependent accuracy of elastomer impression materials. Part II: Polyether, polysulfides, and polyvinylsiloxane. J Prosthet Dent 1981;45(3):329-33. 4. Chee W.L. Winston, Donovan T.E. Polyvinyl siloxane impression materials: A review of properties and techniques. J Prosthet Dent 1992;68:728-32. 5. Hung S H, Purk J H, Tira D E, Eick J D. Accuracy of one-step versus two-step putty wash addition silicone impression technique. J Prosthet Dent 1992;67(5):583-9. 6. Dino Re, Angelis De Francesco, Augusti Gabriele, Augusti Davide, Caputi Sergio, Amario D' Maurizio, and Arcangelo D' Camillo. Mechanical properties of elastomeric impression materials: An In Vitro Comparison. International Journal of Dentistry 2015, Article ID 428286,1-8. 7. Caputi S, Varvara G. Dimensional accuracy of resultant casts made by a monophase, one-step and two-step, and a novel two-step putty/light-body impression technique: An in vitro study. The Journal of Prosthetic Dentistry 2008;99(4);274-281. 8. Gonclaves F.S., Popoff D.A.V, Castro C.D.L, Silva G.C., Magalhaes C.S., Monreira A.N. Dimensional Stability of Elastomeric Impression Materials: A Critical Review of the Literature. Eur. J. Prosthodont. Rest. Dent.2011, 19(1),1-4. 9. Millar BJ, Dunne SM, Robinson PB. In vitro study of the number of surface defects in monophase and two-phase addition silicone impressions. The Journal Of Prosthetic Dentistry 1998;80(1);32-35. 10. Poonam R. Kulkarni et al., Accuracy of the Dies Affected by Tray Type, Material Viscosity, and Pouring Sequence. Journal of Clinical and Diagnostic Research. 2017 Apr, Vol-11(4): ZC128-ZC135. 11. Carlo HL et al. Inorganic Particle Analysis of Dental Impression Elastomers. Braz Dent J 2010;21(6);520-527. 12. Lampé I, Marton S, Hegedüs C. Effect of mixing technique on shrinkage rate of one polyether and two polyvinyl siloxane impression materials. Int J Prosthodont. 2004 Sep-Oct;17(5):590. 13. Luthardt et al. Clinical Parameters Influencing The Accuracy Of 1- and 2- Stage Impressions: A Randomized Controlled Trial. The International Journal Of Prosthdoontics 2008;21;322-327. 14. Jhonson et al. Clinical trial investigating success rates for polyether and vinyl polysiloxane impressions made with full-arch and dual-arch plastic trays. J Prosthet Dent 2010;103:13-22. 15. Walker et al. Moisture Effect on Polyether and Polyvinylsiloxane Dimensional Accuracy and Detail Reproduction. Journal of Prosthodontics 2005, Vol 14 (3), 158-163. 16. Reddy NR, Reddy JS, Padmaja BJ, Reddy BM, Sunil M, Reddy BT. Effect of variation of impression material combinations, dual arch tray types, and sequence of pour on the accuracy of working dies: "An in vitro study". J Indian Prosthodont Soc 2016;16:198-203. 17. Hertfort TW, Gerberich WW, Macosko CW, Goodkind RJ. Viscosity of elastomeric impression materials. .I. Prosthet. Dent. 1977;38940;396-404. 18. Garg S, Kumar S, Jain S, Aggarwal R, Choudhary S, Reddy K N. Comparison of Dimensional Accuracy of Stone Models Fabricated by Three Different Impression Techniques Using Two Brands of Polyvinyl Siloxane Impression Materials. J Contemp Dent Pract 2019 Aug 1;20(8):928-934. 19. Bakri- Al IA, Hussey D, Omari- Al WM. The dimensional accuracy of four impression techniques with the use of addition silicone impression materials. J Clin Dent 2007;18(2);29-33. 20. Morgano SM, Ducharme P, Rose L. Ability of various impression materials to produce duplicate dies from successive impressions. J Prosthet Dent 1995;73:333-40.