Premium
An in vitro comparison of 5 techniques for impressing dowel space preparations
Author(s) -
Chee Winston W. L.,
Cho George C.,
Marzola Riccardo
Publication year - 2000
Publication title -
journal of prosthodontics
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 0.902
H-Index - 60
eISSN - 1532-849X
pISSN - 1059-941X
DOI - 10.1111/j.1532-849x.2000.00019.x
Subject(s) - dowel , impression , materials science , void (composites) , composite material , dentistry , orthodontics , computer science , medicine , world wide web
Purpose This in vitro study compared 5 different dowel space impression techniques using polyvinyl siloxane impression material to determine which method produced fewer voids in the dowel space impression. Materials and Methods Five techniques were used to make impressions of a prepared dowel space in a simulated endodontically treated tooth. Technique I used a 25‐gauge anesthetic needle to act as a vent at the apex of the preparation to reduce voids produced during the expression of light body impression material. The anesthetic needle was removed after the impression material was injected, and an impression post was then inserted to the depth of the preparation. Twenty impressions made using this technique were compared with other techniques that used the vent without a post, no vent with a post, no vent without a post, and a lentulo spiral with a post (Techniques II through V, respectively). The percentage of impressions with voids from each group was compared to determine which technique consistently produced a void‐free impression of the complete preparation length. If voids were observed in the impression, the specimen was considered inadequate. Results The percents of void‐free impressions using Techniques I through V were 100%, 70%, 40%, 60%, and 20%, respectively. Conclusions Using a 25‐gauge needle as a vent while expressing impression material into the dowel space followed by placing the impression post consistently produced void‐free dowel space impressions.