English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Free Plan

There is much discussion in the dental literature regarding the superiority of one impression technique over the other using addition silicone impression material. However, there is inadequate information available on the accuracy of different impression techniques using polyether. The purpose of this study was to assess the linear dimensional accuracy of four impression techniques using polyether on a laboratory model that simulates clinical practice. The impression material used was Impregum Soft™, 3 M ESPE and the four impression techniques used were (1) Monophase impression technique using medium body impression material. (2) One step double mix impression technique using heavy body and light body impression materials simultaneously. (3) Two step double mix impression technique using a cellophane spacer (heavy body material used as a preliminary impression to create a wash space with a cellophane spacer, followed by the use of light body material). (4) Matrix impression using a matrix of polyether occlusal registration material. The matrix is loaded with heavy body material followed by a pick-up impression in medium body material. For each technique, thirty impressions were made of a stainless steel master model that contained three complete crown abutment preparations, which were used as the positive control. Accuracy was assessed by measuring eight dimensions (mesiodistal, faciolingual and inter-abutment) on stone dies poured from impressions of the master model. A two-tailed t test was carried out to test the significance in difference of the distances between the master model and the stone models. One way analysis of variance (ANOVA) was used for multiple group comparison followed by the Bonferroni's test for pair wise comparison. The accuracy was tested at α = 0.05. In general, polyether impression material produced stone dies that were smaller except for the dies produced from the one step double mix impression technique. The ANOVA revealed a highly significant difference for each dimension measured (except for the inter-abutment distance between the first and the second die) between any two groups of stone models obtained from the four impression techniques. Pair wise comparison for each measurement did not reveal any significant difference (except for the faciolingual distance of the third die) between the casts produced using the two step double mix impression technique and the matrix impression system. The two step double mix impression technique produced stone dies that showed the least dimensional variation. During fabrication of a cast restoration, laboratory procedures should not only compensate for the cement thickness, but also for the increase or decrease in die dimensions.

A Comparative Evaluation of the Linear Dimensional Accuracy of Four Impression Techniques using Polyether Impression Material