Limits...
Effect of variation of impression material combinations, dual arch tray types, and sequence of pour on the accuracy of working dies: “ An in vitro study ”

View Article: PubMed Central - PubMed

ABSTRACT

Aims:: To evaluate the accuracy of dies made from dual arch impressions using different sectional dual arch trays, combinations of elastomeric impression materials, and the sequence of pour of dies.

Subjects and methods:: The dual arch impression materials were grouped into three groups depending on the combination of impression materials used and each group is subdivided into four subgroups. A sample size of 8 in each subgroup yielding a total 96 impressions will be made into three groups of 32 each (Group I, II, and III). Group I constitute impressions made using monophase (M) impression material, Group II constitute impressions made using combination of heavy body and light body (HL), and Group III constitute impressions made using combination of putty and light body (PL). Dies obtained were evaluated with a travelling microscope to measure the buccolingual width of the tooth at the margin by using the sharp corners of the notches as reference points.

Statistical analysis used:: Descriptive analysis namely mean and standard deviation, one-way analysis of variance test.

Results:: The results obtained in this study indicate that though not statistically significant, the metal dual arch trays performed better when compared to the plastic trays in reproducing die dimensions.

Conclusions:: From the results obtained, dies poured from combination of heavy body and light body impressions using plastic or metal dual arch trays showed least variation in bucco-lingual dimension from master model.

No MeSH data available.


Tray positioning jig attached to semi adjustable articulator with nissin models articulated
© Copyright Policy - open-access
Related In: Results  -  Collection

License
getmorefigures.php?uid=PMC4837785&req=5

Figure 3: Tray positioning jig attached to semi adjustable articulator with nissin models articulated

Mentions: The typhodont teeth were embedded in the maxillary and mandibular Nissin model bases. The right mandibular first molar was prepared conservatively to receive full veneer retainers for a single unit fixed partial denture. Notches were made on the buccal-lingual gingival margins of the prepared teeth using a round bur (1 mm diameter) to act as reproducible reference points for the purpose of evaluation [Figure 2]. The buccal-lingual gingival margin was chosen because this is one of the least supported areas of the impression in most of the dual arch impression trays.[7] Nissin models (maxillary and mandibular) were mounted in maximum intercuspation on a semi adjustable articulator (Hanau® Wide-Vue 183 series) using machined solid steel blocks. A tray positioning jig was attached to the articulator so that the position of the impression tray was constant and reproducible between the trials [Figure 3].[89]


Effect of variation of impression material combinations, dual arch tray types, and sequence of pour on the accuracy of working dies: “ An in vitro study ”
Tray positioning jig attached to semi adjustable articulator with nissin models articulated
© Copyright Policy - open-access
Related In: Results  -  Collection

License
Show All Figures
getmorefigures.php?uid=PMC4837785&req=5

Figure 3: Tray positioning jig attached to semi adjustable articulator with nissin models articulated
Mentions: The typhodont teeth were embedded in the maxillary and mandibular Nissin model bases. The right mandibular first molar was prepared conservatively to receive full veneer retainers for a single unit fixed partial denture. Notches were made on the buccal-lingual gingival margins of the prepared teeth using a round bur (1 mm diameter) to act as reproducible reference points for the purpose of evaluation [Figure 2]. The buccal-lingual gingival margin was chosen because this is one of the least supported areas of the impression in most of the dual arch impression trays.[7] Nissin models (maxillary and mandibular) were mounted in maximum intercuspation on a semi adjustable articulator (Hanau® Wide-Vue 183 series) using machined solid steel blocks. A tray positioning jig was attached to the articulator so that the position of the impression tray was constant and reproducible between the trials [Figure 3].[89]

View Article: PubMed Central - PubMed

ABSTRACT

Aims:: To evaluate the accuracy of dies made from dual arch impressions using different sectional dual arch trays, combinations of elastomeric impression materials, and the sequence of pour of dies.

Subjects and methods:: The dual arch impression materials were grouped into three groups depending on the combination of impression materials used and each group is subdivided into four subgroups. A sample size of 8 in each subgroup yielding a total 96 impressions will be made into three groups of 32 each (Group I, II, and III). Group I constitute impressions made using monophase (M) impression material, Group II constitute impressions made using combination of heavy body and light body (HL), and Group III constitute impressions made using combination of putty and light body (PL). Dies obtained were evaluated with a travelling microscope to measure the buccolingual width of the tooth at the margin by using the sharp corners of the notches as reference points.

Statistical analysis used:: Descriptive analysis namely mean and standard deviation, one-way analysis of variance test.

Results:: The results obtained in this study indicate that though not statistically significant, the metal dual arch trays performed better when compared to the plastic trays in reproducing die dimensions.

Conclusions:: From the results obtained, dies poured from combination of heavy body and light body impressions using plastic or metal dual arch trays showed least variation in bucco-lingual dimension from master model.

No MeSH data available.