Anatomization of various impression techniques in fixed partial prosthodontics

Kumar, Varun; Seth, Jyotsna; Sagar, Megha; Aeran, Vibhuti

doi:10.18231/2395-499x.2018.0048

Cited by 3 publications

(3 citation statements)

References 19 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Its disadvantages include dimensional alterations, extra chair time, and extra material required [20]. The monophase or single viscosity technique employs a medium viscosity impression material whereby the same material for the tray is syringed over the preparation by shear thinning [21]; however, there is a greater incidence of voids in monophasic impressions when compared with the dual viscosity technique [22].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Factors that influence the quality of final impressions for fixed dental prostheses in Nairobi, Kenya

K. Gikunda,

A. Osiro,

O. Simila

et al. 2023

IIDM

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background:Good quality dental impressions free of air bubbles, voids, steps, drags, streaks and tears are a pre-requisite for the fabrication of well-fitting fixed dental prostheses (FDP). The quality of impressions is dependent on clinician and material factors.Aim:To evaluate factors that influence the quality of final impressions for FDP in Nairobi, Kenya. Methods:In this cross-sectional study, 234 impressions received by five dental laboratories were analyzed. The study collected information on the type of tray, impression material, technique, type of prostheses, and clinically detectable errors, including voids, inadequate material at margins, tears, steps, drags, and streaks. Impression quality was the outcome assessed as good, fair, or poor by two investigators. The independent variables influencing impression quality included clinician specialty, experience, impression material, technique, and tray type.Results: Inter-rater agreement was 96.8% (p<0.001). Clinician experience ranged between 1-45yrs, median 13.5yrs and mean 8.39±11.96yrs. The majority were GPs, 80.8% while restorative dentists were 11.5% and other specialists, 7.7%. Most impressions were non-aqueouselastomers, 97.9% employing dual-viscosity technique, 75.6%. Impression trays included stock metal, 60.3%, stock plastic, 34.2%, and custom, 5.5%. Impression quality was good, 24.8%, fair, 37.2% or poor, 38.0%. Cumulatively, 74.5% impressions hadbubbles/voids, 53.0% tears and 43.2% poor margins. Clarity of margins was associated with clinician specialty, (Fisher’s exact=9.372, p=0.047), and impression technique with impression quality, (Pearson’s χ2 = 6.385, p=0.041). Compared to restorative specialists, estimated odds of other specialists producing poor margins was 5.71, 95%CI 1.55,21.06, Wald χ2=5.24, p=0.009 while for GPs, the estimated odds was 2.19, 95%CI 0.88, 5.43, Wald χ2 = 2.86, p=0.09. Compared to dual viscosity, estimated odds of monophase giving a poor-quality impression was 1.52, 95%CI 0.83,2.78, Wald χ2 = 1.52, p=0.18.Conclusion:Most impressions were good or fair hence acceptable. Quality of impressions was influenced by clinician specialty and impression technique

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Factors that influence the quality of final impressions for fixed dental prostheses in Nairobi, Kenya

K. Gikunda,

A. Osiro,

O. Simila

et al. 2023

IIDM

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…With proper material selection and manipulation, accurate impressions can be obtained for fabrication of toothsupported restorations [5]. The impression of prepared teeth must be dimensionally accurate, stable, and compatible with gypsum products and also must reproduce the surface details of prepared teeth, all of which are prerequisites for a successful restoration [6].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Comparative Analysis of Three Different Impression Techniques for Impression Defects and Dimensional Accuracy Using a Digital Intraoral Scanner for Fixed Partial Dentures: An In Vivo Study

Khatuja¹,

Katiyar²,

Tarannum³

et al. 2023

Cureus

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Aim: To evaluate the impression defects and compare the dimensional accuracy of three different impression techniques (single-step, two-step without spacer, two-step with spacer) for fixed partial dentures using a digital intraoral scanner in the anterior maxillary region.Materials and methods: Thirty subjects, above the age of 18 years with maxillary central/lateral incisor requiring fixed prostheses were selected according to the inclusion and exclusion criteria. The impressions were rated and evaluated using Heine C2.3K Binocular loupes (Heine Ltd., Dover, NH, USA). An intraoral scanner and digital vernier calipers were used to study and compare the dimensional accuracy of all three impression techniques.Results: Statistical analysis using the chi-square test revealed that the single-step double mix technique showed the least number of defects (40%), followed by the two-step without spacer (56.7%) and then the two-step with spacer (80%) impression techniques. Using Kruskal Wallis and Mann Whitney U test for dimensional accuracy, it was found that the two-step with spacer impression technique was closer to the control group (intraoral scanner) followed by the two-step without spacer and then the single-step double mix impression techniques.Conclusion: All three impression techniques showed the presence of impression defects, mainly voids and bubbles. The single-step double mix and two-step without spacer techniques had more favourable outcomes compared to the two-step with spacer impression technique. The two-step with spacer impression technique was dimensionally more accurate compared to the two-step without spacer and single-step double mix techniques for fixed partial dentures.

show abstract

“…There are several impression techniques, and each one has its advantages and disadvantages. The 100% accurate technique does not exist so far [ 1 ].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

A Novel Nontraumatic Gingival Retraction Method for a Single-Unit Crown Impression

Al-Nasser

Alhouri

Mouti

et al. 2022

Case Reports in Dentistry

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Until now, there have been three traditional options for gingival retraction procedures, mechanical, chemicomechanical, and surgical methods, which have a degree of trauma that varies according to the clinical experience. The gingival tissue may be very delicate and susceptible to recession if too much trauma was applied. This article describes a novel nontraumatic gingival retraction method, without cords, chemicals, surgery, or any special equipment.

show abstract

Anatomization of various impression techniques in fixed partial prosthodontics

Cited by 3 publications

References 19 publications

Factors that influence the quality of final impressions for fixed dental prostheses in Nairobi, Kenya

Factors that influence the quality of final impressions for fixed dental prostheses in Nairobi, Kenya

Comparative Analysis of Three Different Impression Techniques for Impression Defects and Dimensional Accuracy Using a Digital Intraoral Scanner for Fixed Partial Dentures: An In Vivo Study

A Novel Nontraumatic Gingival Retraction Method for a Single-Unit Crown Impression

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About