Effect of techniques, trays and materials on accuracy of impressions clinically made / Efeito de técnicas, moldeiras e materiais na exatidão de moldagens odontológicas

Abstract Introduction Making accurate and dimensionally stable impressions to duplicate oral conditions and tooth morphology is an essential step of prosthetic dentistry for fabricating well-fitted indirect restorations and, consequently, ensure the longevity and success of the treatment. Several authors describe pros and cons of different impression techniques, although there is no unanimity among them about the best one. Objective This study evaluated casts' accuracy made by different impression techniques, trays and materials. Material and method 10 patients were selected and 20 impressions from teeth #13 to #16 were performed using single-step (SS) and two-step techniques, made with metal stock and customized acrylic resin partial trays, vinyl polysiloxane and condensation silicone rubbers. Type IV gypsum was used to pour the casts. Three photographs of each patient (baseline), as their respective gypsum casts, were taken, measured in their interested buccal surface area. Comparisons of area values among experimental groups and baseline were performed. Data showed adherence to normal curve, being submitted to 3-way ANOVA/Bonferroni test (α=.05). Result Technique produced significant differences (P=0.02). SS technique was more accurate than BUR one (P=0.003; 95=1.22 to 5.98), but both resulted in similar casts to PVC, MOV and NR techniques, which were similar to each other (P>0.05). Conclusion SS technique showed the closest absolute values to baseline.

Resumo Introdução Realizar moldagens precisas e dimensionalmente estáveis que dupliquem a condição oral é um passo essencial para a confecção de restaurações indiretas de qualidade, garantindo seu sucesso e longevidade. Diversos estudos tem demonstrado os prós e contras de diferentes técnicas de moldagem, mas nenhum consenso da melhor técnica ainda foi descrito. Objetivo Este estudo avaliou a exatidão de modelos de gesso confeccionados por diferentes técnicas de moldagem, moldeiras e materiais. Material e método 10 pacientes foram selecionados e 20 moldes dos dentes #13 até #16 foram realizados utilizando técnicas simultânea (SS) e de dois passos, realizados com moldeiras parciais metálicas e individuais de resina acrílica, silicones de adição e condensação. Gesso tipo IV foi usados para os vazamentos. Três fotografias de cada paciente (baseline), assim como dos seus respectivos modelos de gesso foram realizadas e sua área foi então mensurada, na porção vestibular. Comparações de valores de área entre os grupos experimentais e o baseline foram performadas. Os dados mostraram aderência a curva normal, sendo submetidos ao teste 3-way ANOVA/Bonferroni (α=.05). Resultado As técnicas produziram diferenças significativas (P=0.02).Técnica simultânea foi mais precisa que a BUR (P=0.0003; 95=1,22 a 5.98), mas ambas resultaram em modelos similares àqueles feitos por meio das técnicas de PVC, MOV e sem NR, que foram similares entre si (P>0.05). Conclusão Técnica simultânea demonstrou valores absolutos similares àqueles demonstrados pelo baseline.

Comparison of impression techniques and double pouring by dental cast's accuracy. Preliminary clinical-lab trial

Aim: This study compared impression techniques and double pouring by means of cast's accuracy. Methods: For each patient (n=10), impressions from right maxillary canine to first molar were made with acrylic resin trays and vinyl-polysiloxane using one single-step, and four two-steps techniques: relief with poly(vinyl chloride) film; tungsten-carbide bur/scalpel blade; small movements of the tray; non-relief. Total visible buccal surface area of crowns was measured three times using photographs from patients (Baseline) and casts. Mean area values (mm2) between Baseline and casts differences were analyzed by two-way repeated-measures ANOVA (α=.05; 1-ß=85%). Results: No significant differences were observed for Impression Techniques (P=.525), Double Pouring (P=.281), and their interaction (P=.809). Conclusion: All impression techniques and double pouring produced casts with similar accuracy

Accuracy of Gypsum Casts after Different Impression Techniques and Double Pouring.

This study evaluated the accuracy of gypsum casts after different impression techniques and double pouring. Ten patients were selected and for each one it was obtained 5 partial putty/wash impressions with vinyl polysiloxane (VPS) material from teeth #13 to #16 with partial metal stock trays. The following techniques were performed: (1) one-step; two-step relief with: (2) PVC film; (3) slow-speed tungsten carbide bur and scalpel blade, (4) small movements of the tray and (5) without relief-negative control. The impressions were disinfected with 0.5% sodium hypochlorite for 10 minutes and stored during 110 and 230 minutes for the first and second pouring, respectively, with type IV gypsum. Three intra-oral lateral photographs of each patient were taken using a tripod and a customized radiographic positioner. The images were imported into ImageJ software and the total area of the buccal surface from teeth #13 to #16 was measured. A 4.0% coefficient of variance was criterion for using these measurements as Baseline values. The casts were photographed and analyzed using the same standardization for the clinical images. The area (mm2) obtained from the difference between the measurements of each gypsum cast and the Baseline value of the respective patient were calculated and analyzed by repeated-measures two way-ANOVA and Mauchly's Sphericity test (α = 0.05). No significant effect was observed for Impression technique (P = 0.23), Second pouring (P = 0.99) and their interaction (P = 0.25). The impression techniques and double pouring did not influence the accuracy of the gypsum casts.