Impression materials for dental prosthesis

Zarrintaj, Payam; Rezaei, Sahba; Jafari, Seyed Hassan; Saeb, Mohammad Reza; Ghalami, Shadi; Roshandel, Mahsa; Peiman, Brouki Milan; Ehsaneh, Daghigh Ahmadi; Sefat, Farshid; Mozafari, Masoud

doi:10.1016/b978-0-08-102476-8.00009-8

Cited by 6 publications

(5 citation statements)

References 40 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…And low viscosity materials show the greatest changes due to their lower filler content. 15,16 It is emphasized that to obtain accurate impressions, it is necessary to follow manufacturers' instructions strictly. Light-body material should be mixed first and then putty in the single-step technique.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Comparison of Linear Dimensional Accuracy Between One Step and Two-step Impression Technique Using Polyvinyl Siloxane Impression Material

Dad

Yazdanie

Hussain

et al. 2022

J Gandhara Med Dent Sci

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objectives: This study compares the linear dimensional accuracy between one step and two-step impression techniques using polyvinyl siloxane impression material. Methodology: The Randomized controlled trial was done in the Department of Prosthodontics, FMH College of Medicine and Dentistry Lahore and Pakistan Council for Science and Industrial Research Lahore. All impression samples which fall under the inclusion criteria in the Department of Prosthodontics, FMH College of Medicine and Dentistry Lahore and Pakistan Council for Science and Industrial Research Lahore were included. Samples were divided into two groups, i.e., Group 1 (single-step technique) & Group 2 (two-step technique). The impression's longitudinal length and inter-line distance were measured to assess the outcome i-e linear dimensional accuracy. Result: A total of 60 impression samples with polyvinyl siloxane impressions material were made. The linear dimensional accuracy in one step & two-step impression technique was seen in 5 (8.33%) & 13(21.66%) samples, respectively, (p=0.011). Conclusion: Compared to the one-step impression technique, the higher linear dimensional accuracy of the two-step impression technique uses polyvinyl siloxane impression material.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…They reported that one stage putty/wash technique and two-stage impression techniques did not significantly change dimensional accuracy. On the contrary, impression materials have improved, so accuracy may be controlled more with the technique than the material itself 15,18,19 .…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Comparison of Linear Dimensional Accuracy Between One Step and Two-step Impression Technique Using Polyvinyl Siloxane Impression Material

Dad

Yazdanie

Hussain

et al. 2022

J Gandhara Med Dent Sci

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Nevertheless, various outcomes have been observed in studies assessing implant impression materials. Researchers have examined the precision of these materials, and polyether has demonstrated superior results compared to condensation silicone, addition silicone, polysulfide, irreversible hydrocolloids, and plaster materials [3,7].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Evaluation of the effect of chemical disinfection and ultraviolet disinfection on the dimensional stability of polyether impression material: an in-vitro study

Joshi,

Madhav,

Saini

et al. 2024

BMC Oral Health

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background Various methods, chemical and physical, disinfect dental impressions. Common chemicals include 1% Sodium Hypochlorite and 2% glutaraldehyde, while UV radiation is a prevalent physical method. Few studies compare their effects on dimensional stability in polyether impressions. This study aims to assess such stability using different disinfection methods. Therefore, this study was planned to evaluate the dimensional stability of polyether impression material using different disinfection methods. Methods This in vitro study compared the effects of chemical disinfectants (1% Sodium Hypochlorite and 2% glutaraldehyde) and UV irradiation on the dimensional stability of polyether impression material. Groups A, B, C, and D, each with ten samples (N = 10), were studied. Group A was untreated (control). Group B was treated with 2% glutaraldehyde for 20 min, Group C with 1% Sodium Hypochlorite for 20 min, and Group D with UV rays for 20 min. A pilot milling machine drill was used to make four parallel holes labeled A, B, C, and D in the anterior and premolar regions from right to left. After sequential drilling, four implant analogs were positioned using a surveyor for accuracy. Ten open-tray polyether impressions were made and treated as described in the groups, followed by pouring the corresponding casts. Distortion values for each disinfection method were measured using a coordinate measuring machine capable of recording on the X- and Y-axes. Results A comprehensive analysis was conducted using the one-way ANOVA test for distinct groups labeled A, B, C, and D, revealing significant differences in the mean distances for X1, X2, X4, X5, and X6 among the groups, with p-values ranging from 0.001 to 0.000. However, no significant differences were observed in X3. Notably, mean distances for the Y variables exhibited substantial differences among the groups, emphasizing parameter variations, with p-values ranging from 0.000 to 0.033. The results compared the four groups using the one-way ANOVA test, revealing statistically significant distance differences for most X and Y variables, except for X3 and Y4. Similarly, post-hoc Tukey’s tests provided specific pairwise comparisons, underlining the distinctions between group C and the others in the mean and deviation distances for various variables on both the X- and Y-axes. Conclusions This study found that disinfection with 1% sodium hypochlorite or UV rays for 20 min maintained dimensional stability in polyether impressions.

show abstract

“…Thus, an ideal impression material would require properties that include good dimensional stability over time, reproducibility, elasticity, short setting time, enough working time, etc. [8][9][10][11][12]. The dimensional stability (i.e., their capacity to maintain their shape for a long period of time) is somewhat in contradiction to elasticity, but the latter is essential after the setting of the materials, making it possible to remove impressions from the oral cavity without suffering deformations [12].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The dimensional stability (i.e., their capacity to maintain their shape for a long period of time) is somewhat in contradiction to elasticity, but the latter is essential after the setting of the materials, making it possible to remove impressions from the oral cavity without suffering deformations [12]. When using such materials, one must also consider the fact that the best accuracy of the materials is after they polymerized; later on, it decreases in a variable way, depending on the material [9][10][11].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Conventional Dental Impressions vs. Impressions Reinforced with Rigid Mouthguards

Novac,

Tudor,

Pop

et al. 2024

Polymers

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The impression materials utilized today in dental medicine offer a good reproducibility and are easily accepted by patients. However, because they are polymer-based, they have issues regarding their dimensional stability. In this respect, the present work proposes a new type of dental impression, which is reinforced with rigid mouthguards. The aim of the study is to test the performances of such new impressions by comparing them to conventional ones—from this critical point of view, of the dimensional stability. Three types of polymeric materials were considered for both types of impressions: alginate, condensation silicone, and addition silicone. In order to obtain the new type of impressions, a manufacturing technique was developed, comprising the following phases: (i) conventional impressions were made; (ii) a plaster model was duplicated, and 15 rigid mouthguards were obtained; (iii) they were inserted in the impression technique, with each mouthguard positioned on the cast before the high-consistency material was inserted in the tray and the practitioner took the impression; (iv) the mouthguard remained in the tray and the low-viscosity material was inserted over the mouthguard; (v) the impression was positioned on the model, and after the material hardened, the mouthguard-reinforced impression was analyzed. In the evaluation of the dimensional stability, rigorous statistical analysis was essential to discern the performance differences between conventional and mouthguard-reinforced dental impressions. Statistical analyses employed non-parametric Mann–Whitney U tests because of the non-normal distribution of the data. They indicated a statistically significant improvement in the dimensional stability of addition silicone impressions when reinforced with mouthguards (p < 0.05), showcasing superior performance over conventional methods. Conversely, alginate and condensation silicone reinforced impressions did not exhibit the same level of stability improvement, suggesting the need for further optimization of these materials. In conclusion, from the three considered elastomers, addition silicone was found to be the prime candidate for high-precision dental impressions, with the potential to improve their quality from conventional impressions by utilizing the proposed reinforcing technique.

show abstract

Impression materials for dental prosthesis

Cited by 6 publications

References 40 publications

Comparison of Linear Dimensional Accuracy Between One Step and Two-step Impression Technique Using Polyvinyl Siloxane Impression Material

Comparison of Linear Dimensional Accuracy Between One Step and Two-step Impression Technique Using Polyvinyl Siloxane Impression Material

Evaluation of the effect of chemical disinfection and ultraviolet disinfection on the dimensional stability of polyether impression material: an in-vitro study

Conventional Dental Impressions vs. Impressions Reinforced with Rigid Mouthguards

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About