Limits...
Comparing the Accuracy of Three Different Impression Materials in Making Duplicate Dies.

Bajoghli F, Sabouhi M, Nosouhian S, Davoudi A, Behnamnia Z - J Int Oral Health (2015)

Bottom Line: The comparison was done by one-way ANOVA and SPSS software (Version 13) at a significant level of 0.05.The Impergum had the highest capability in making duplicate dies (P > 0.05).The Impergum impression material manifested the highest capability in making a better marginal adaptation of duplicate dies but further studies are needed to make a precise decision.

View Article: PubMed Central - PubMed

Affiliation: Associate Professor, Department of Prosthodontics, Dental Materials Research Center, School of Dentistry, Isfahan University of Medical Sciences, Isfahan, Iran.

ABSTRACT

Background: Marginal adaptation is very important in cast restorations. Maladaptation leads to plaque retention, reduction of mechanical and esthetic properties. The aim of this study was to evaluate the precision of three different impression materials (including: Additional silicone [AS] and condensational silicone [CS] and polyether [PE]) for duplicating master dies.

Materials and methods: Three master dies from an acrylic tooth model-with supragingival and shoulder finishing line was made by using PE: Impergum, CS: Speedex, and AS: Panasil separately. The Ni-Cr copings were prepared from master dies separately. They were placed on the acrylic model and the mean marginal difference was recorded by using a stereomicroscope. Then 30 duplicate test dies were made by using the same impression materials and the marginal gaps were recorded. The comparison was done by one-way ANOVA and SPSS software (Version 13) at a significant level of 0.05.

Results: The mean marginal difference of four walls from Impergum (38.56 um) was the lowest than Speedex (38.92 um) and Panasil (38.24 um). The Impergum had the highest capability in making duplicate dies (P > 0.05).

Conclusion: The Impergum impression material manifested the highest capability in making a better marginal adaptation of duplicate dies but further studies are needed to make a precise decision.

No MeSH data available.


Related in: MedlinePlus

Duplicated dies which were prepared by three types of impression materials (Speedex, Panasil, and Impergum).
© Copyright Policy - open-access
Related In: Results  -  Collection

License
getmorefigures.php?uid=PMC4513764&req=5

Figure 1: Duplicated dies which were prepared by three types of impression materials (Speedex, Panasil, and Impergum).

Mentions: A total of 30 successive impressions were then made, ten for each of the three impression material. Dies were fabricated with the same procedure as already described, and the same stone and delays. These dies were assumed as the test duplicate dies (Figure 1). Neither die hardener nor die relief was applied. Each casting from each of the master dies was placed on each of the test dies which were made from the same respective impression material. The marginal discrepancy was recorded with the use of the described measuring technique.


Comparing the Accuracy of Three Different Impression Materials in Making Duplicate Dies.

Bajoghli F, Sabouhi M, Nosouhian S, Davoudi A, Behnamnia Z - J Int Oral Health (2015)

Duplicated dies which were prepared by three types of impression materials (Speedex, Panasil, and Impergum).
© Copyright Policy - open-access
Related In: Results  -  Collection

License
Show All Figures
getmorefigures.php?uid=PMC4513764&req=5

Figure 1: Duplicated dies which were prepared by three types of impression materials (Speedex, Panasil, and Impergum).
Mentions: A total of 30 successive impressions were then made, ten for each of the three impression material. Dies were fabricated with the same procedure as already described, and the same stone and delays. These dies were assumed as the test duplicate dies (Figure 1). Neither die hardener nor die relief was applied. Each casting from each of the master dies was placed on each of the test dies which were made from the same respective impression material. The marginal discrepancy was recorded with the use of the described measuring technique.

Bottom Line: The comparison was done by one-way ANOVA and SPSS software (Version 13) at a significant level of 0.05.The Impergum had the highest capability in making duplicate dies (P > 0.05).The Impergum impression material manifested the highest capability in making a better marginal adaptation of duplicate dies but further studies are needed to make a precise decision.

View Article: PubMed Central - PubMed

Affiliation: Associate Professor, Department of Prosthodontics, Dental Materials Research Center, School of Dentistry, Isfahan University of Medical Sciences, Isfahan, Iran.

ABSTRACT

Background: Marginal adaptation is very important in cast restorations. Maladaptation leads to plaque retention, reduction of mechanical and esthetic properties. The aim of this study was to evaluate the precision of three different impression materials (including: Additional silicone [AS] and condensational silicone [CS] and polyether [PE]) for duplicating master dies.

Materials and methods: Three master dies from an acrylic tooth model-with supragingival and shoulder finishing line was made by using PE: Impergum, CS: Speedex, and AS: Panasil separately. The Ni-Cr copings were prepared from master dies separately. They were placed on the acrylic model and the mean marginal difference was recorded by using a stereomicroscope. Then 30 duplicate test dies were made by using the same impression materials and the marginal gaps were recorded. The comparison was done by one-way ANOVA and SPSS software (Version 13) at a significant level of 0.05.

Results: The mean marginal difference of four walls from Impergum (38.56 um) was the lowest than Speedex (38.92 um) and Panasil (38.24 um). The Impergum had the highest capability in making duplicate dies (P > 0.05).

Conclusion: The Impergum impression material manifested the highest capability in making a better marginal adaptation of duplicate dies but further studies are needed to make a precise decision.

No MeSH data available.


Related in: MedlinePlus