ABSTRACT
INTRODUCTION: Minor rotation of impression coping secured in the impression is an avoidable error that needs to be minimized to ensure precise positioning of implant analog in master cast. AIM: The aim of the study was to compare the precision in obtaining master casts by improving the stability of impression copings in the impression with the use of tray adhesive along various surface treatments to increase surface area and by mechanical locking. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A total of 60 samples were made (15 samples for each group). A total of 15 samples for Group I were prepared with untreated impression copings, 15 samples for Group II with impression copings treated and modified by application of tray adhesive only. Group III includes 15 samples which were fabricated with impression copings modified by making four vertical grooves on surface of impression coping and coated with adhesive. Group IV had 15 samples which were fabricated with impression copings sandblasted with 50 µm aluminum oxide powder and coated with adhesive. Profile projector was used to evaluate the rotational accuracy of the implant analogs by comparing Molar Implant Angle (MIA) and Premolar Implant Angle (PIA) of test samples with reference model. One-way ANOVA and Student t-test were used to analyze the data. RESULTS: One-way ANOVA didn't show any significant differences for both MIA and PIA between the Groups I, II, III and IV. Student's unpaired t-test revealed no significant difference in the mean MIA and mean PIA. Conclusion: Though results were statistically non-significant, all types of surface treatments of the impression copings showed more accurate transfer than those with no treatment. Sandblasted and adhesive coated impression copings showed minimum amount of rotation followed by those with vertical slots and adhesive coated impression copings.
ABSTRACT
AIM: The purpose of the study was to evaluate the fracture strength of provisional fixed partial dentures made of autopolymerizing polymethylmethacrylate (PMMA) resin using different types of reinforcement materials to determine the best among them. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Fifty samples were made (10 samples for each group) with autopolymerizing PMMA resin using reinforcement materials (stainless steel wire: looped and unlooped and glass fiber: loose and unidirectional) as 3-unit posterior bridge. The test specimens were divided into five groups depending on the reinforcing material as Group I, II, III, IV, and V; Group I: PMMA unreinforced (control group), Group II: PMMA reinforced with stainless steel wire (straight ends), Group III: PMMA reinforced with stainless steel wire (looped ends), Group IV: PMMA reinforced with unidirectional glass fibers, and Group V: PMMA reinforced with randomly distributed glass fibers. Universal testing machine was used to evaluate and compare the fracture strength of samples. Comparison of mean ultimate force and ultimate stress was done employing one-way analysis of variance and Tukey's post hoc tests. RESULTS: The highest and lowest mean ultimate force and mean ultimate stress were of Group IV and I, respectively. Tukey's post hoc honestly significant difference multiple comparison for mean ultimate force and stress shows the increase in strength to be statistically significant (P < 0.05) except for the samples reinforced with randomly distributed glass fibers (P > 0.05). CONCLUSION: Unidirectional glass fibers showed the maximum strength, which was comparable to mean values of both stainless steel wire groups. Low cost and easy technique of using stainless steel wire make it the material of choice over the unidirectional glass fiber for reinforcement in nonesthetic areas where high strength is required.
