No abstract

The aim of this study was to assess by means of a three-dimensional computed tomography scanning system the occlusal surface characteristics of dental casts made using two different impression materials. Alginate and polyvinyl siloxane impressions were taken of 20 dental students resulting in 40 dental casts. The casts were paired for each student separately so that each pair consisted of an alginate poured cast and a polyvinyl siloxane poured out cast. The casts were scanned using FlashCT scanner and for each cast, a three-dimensional digital image was obtained. The digitized casts were processed using the three-dimensional imaging software Geomagic Studio 9. A total of 464 paired teeth were digitally separated and superimposed. For each tooth, two measurements were obtained corresponding to the two different impression materials used. The two sets of volumes for all digitally separated teeth were compared and analysed using the Wilcoxon signed test. Larger volume measurements were obtained for teeth separated from alginate poured out casts than from their corresponding ones from polyvinyl siloxane casts (P = 0.005). When the teeth were divided into the groups of incisors, canines and premolars/molars, only the last one exhibited significant difference (P = 0.00). The mean difference between the volumes measured for all 464 teeth separated was 0.041 mm(3) (+/-0.33). The occlusal surfaces of teeth appear differently in dental casts depending on the impression materials used. Impressions of dental casts should be utilized with caution in relation to their research application and in reference with dental wear studies.

This case report describes the combined surgical, orthodontic and prosthodontic rehabilitation of an adult female patient with a previous history of follicular ameloblastoma, which was treated through partial mandibulectomy and an immediate replacement of missing bone with an autologous calvarial bone graft. Orthodontic treatment was undertaken in order to restore occlusal disturbances and obtain sufficient space for two dental implants and an optimum prosthodontic rehabilitation. (Eur J Dent 2010;4:192-196)

No abstract

No abstract