Dimensional accuracy of resultant casts made by a monophase, one-step and two-step, and a novel two-step putty/light-body impression technique: An in vitro study

Caputi, Sergio; Varvara, Giuseppe

doi:10.1016/s0022-3913(08)60061-x

Cited by 129 publications

(148 citation statements)

References 17 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

121

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…This result is in agreement with other studies which have shown that impression material of thickness 2mm gives better dimensional accuracy and as the thickness of the material increases more than 2mm the dimensional accuracy decreases 8,10,11 . However some authors have mentioned that if the thickness of light body is less than 1mm then also the dimensional accuracy of the impression is affected 11,12 . Difference in dimensions of samples poured at 1 hour, 24 hours and 48 hours was not significant, this observation was found to be clinically irrelevant because, polyvinyl siloxane impression materials are not susceptible to changes in humidity, and they do not undergo any further chemical reactions or release any byproducts 13 .…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Dimensional Accuracy and Stability of Silicone Putty Wash Impression Technique with Different Thickness of Light Body Material

Mubashir¹,

Motwani²,

Sahu³

et al. 2015

J Cont Med A Dent

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Dimensional Accuracy and Stability of Silicone Putty Wash Impression Technique with Different Thickness of Light Body Material

Mubashir¹,

Motwani²,

Sahu³

et al. 2015

J Cont Med A Dent

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…This result is, however a different analysis method comparing more percent of the scanned surface was used, in good company to our results for the conventional impression trueness. The differences of this threedomensional difference analysis can`t be compared to studies with linear distance measurements with accuracies of about 10µm for conventional impression materials (Wostmann et al, 2009) (Balkenhol, Ferger, & Wostmann, 2007) (Caputi & Varvara, 2008) (Chandran et al, 2010).…”

Section: Digital Impressionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Trueness measurement for conventional intraoral impression with gypsum models are most frequently linear distance measurements (Chandran et al, 2010) (Wostmann, Rehmann, & Balkenhol, 2009) (Hoyos & Soderholm, 2011). This method is restricted to few measuring points, the need of specific geometric points with clear markers for the measurement and the lack of displaying threedimensional changes of the dental model like torsions and axis deviations (Chandran et al, 2010) (Brosky, Pesun, Lowder, Delong, & Hodges, 2002) (Caputi & Varvara, 2008).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Accuracy of complete-arch dental impressions: A new method of measuring trueness and precision

Ender

Mehl

2013

The Journal of Prosthetic Dentistry

501

429

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

STATEMENT OF PROBLEM: A new approach to both 3-dimensional (3D) trueness and precision is necessary to assess the accuracy of intraoral digital impressions and compare them to conventionally acquired impressions. PURPOSE: The purpose of this in vitro study was to evaluate whether a new reference scanner is capable of measuring conventional and digital intraoral complete-arch impressions for 3D accuracy. MATERIAL AND METHODS: A steel reference dentate model was fabricated and measured with a reference scanner (digital reference model). Conventional impressions were made from the reference model, poured with Type IV dental stone, scanned with the reference scanner, and exported as digital models. Additionally, digital impressions of the reference model were made and the digital models were exported. Precision was measured by superimposing the digital models within each group. Superimposing the digital models on the digital reference model assessed the trueness of each impression method. Statistical significance was assessed with an independent sample t test (=.05). RE-SULTS: The reference scanner delivered high accuracy over the entire dental arch with a precision of 1.6 ±0.6 µm and a trueness of 5.3 ±1.1 µm. Conventional impressions showed significantly higher precision (12.5 ±2.5 µm) and trueness values (20.4 ±2.2 µm) with small deviations in the second molar region (P<.001). Digital impressions were significantly less accurate with a precision of 32.4 ±9.6 µm and a trueness of 58.6 ±15.8µm (P<.001). More systematic deviations of the digital models were visible across the entire dental arch. CONCLUSIONS: The new reference scanner is capable of measuring the precision and trueness of both digital and conventional complete-arch impressions. The digital impression is less accurate and shows a different pattern of deviation than the conventional impression. Methods: A steel reference model was scanned with the reference scanner to evaluate precision and trueness. The reference model then was used to perform five conventional impressions with a polyvinylsiloxanether material (Identium, Kettenbach) in a putty and wash technique with standard stock trays (ASA Permalock, ASA Dental). The conventional impressions were poured with Type IV stone (CamBase, Dentona) and scanned with the reference scanner. Five digital impressions with a optical intraoral scanning system (CEREC AC, Sirona) were made. In each group, the models were superimposed and the differences computed with a signed nearest neighbour method. The 90-10%/2 percentile of the differences from each comparison was taken to compute the mean value for precision. The trueness of each impression method was assessed through superimposition of the impressions with the refefence scan of the steel reference model. Results:The reference scanner delivers an accuracy with 1.6±0.6 µm for precision and 5.3±1.1 µm for trueness over a full dental arch scan. The conventional impression method shows significant higher (p<0.001) precision (12.5±2.5 µm) and trueness (20....

show abstract

“…All the deviations for all the scanned materials (VM, TC, AU) increase with higher water levels and lower scanning angles ( taken with 3D measuring devices show an even higher accuracy [24][25][26][27][28]23], whilst the accuracy of a conventional impression can vary between 10 and 70 µm depending on the material used or the study [29,30,25,31].…”

Section: Test Series Imentioning

confidence: 99%

Influence of material surface on the scanning error of a powder-free 3D measuring system

2015

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

OBJECTIVES This study aims to evaluate the accuracy of a powder-free three-dimensional (3D) measuring system (CEREC Omnicam, Sirona), when scanning the surface of a material at different angles. Additionally, the influence of water was investigated. MATERIALS AND METHODS Nine different materials were combined with human tooth surface (enamel) to create n = 27 specimens. These materials were: Controls (InCoris TZI and Cerec Guide Bloc), ceramics (Vitablocs® Mark II and IPS Empress CAD), metals (gold and amalgam) and composites (Tetric Ceram, Filtek Supreme A2B and A2E). The highly polished samples were scanned at different angles with and without water. The 216 scans were then analyzed and descriptive statistics were obtained. RESULTS The height difference between the tooth and material surfaces, as measured with the 3D scans, ranged from 0.83 m (±2.58 m) to -14.79 m (±3.45 m), while the scan noise on the materials was between 3.23 m (±0.79 m) and 14.24 m (±6.79 m) without considering the control groups. Depending on the thickness of the water film, measurement errors in the order of 300-1,600 m could be observed. CONCLUSIONS The inaccuracies between the tooth and material surfaces, as well as the scan noise for the materials, were within the range of error for measurements used for conventional impressions and are therefore negligible. The presence of water, however, greatly affects the scan. CLINICAL RELEVANCE The tested powder-free 3D measuring system can safely be used to scan different material surfaces without the prior application of a powder, although drying of the surface prior to scanning is highly advisable. AbstractObjectives This study aims to evaluate the accuracy of a powder-free 3D measuring system (CEREC Omnicam, Sirona), when scanning the surface of a material at different angles.Additionally, the influence of water was investigated. Materials and MethodsNine different materials were combined with human tooth surface (enamel) to create n = 27 specimens. These materials were: Controls (InCoris TZI, Cerec Guide Bloc), ceramics (Vitablocs ® Mark II and IPS Empress CAD), metals (gold and amalgam) and composites (Tetric Ceram, Filtek Supreme A2B and A2E). The highly polished samples were scanned at different angles with and without water. The 216 scans were then analyzed and descriptive statistics were obtained. ResultsThe height difference between the tooth and material surfaces, as measured with the 3D-scans, ranged from .83 (± 2.58) to -14.79 (± 3.45) µm, while the scan noise on the materials was between 3.23 (± .79) and 14.24 (± 6.79) µm without considering the control groups.Depending on the thickness of the water film, measurement errors in the order of 300-1600 µm could be observed. ConclusionsThe inaccuracies between the tooth and material surfaces, as well as the scan noise for the materials, were within the range of error for measurements used for conventional impressions and are therefore negligible. The presence of water, however, greatly affects the scan.Clinical Relevance The...

show abstract

Dimensional accuracy of resultant casts made by a monophase, one-step and two-step, and a novel two-step putty/light-body impression technique: An in vitro study

Cited by 129 publications

References 17 publications

Dimensional Accuracy and Stability of Silicone Putty Wash Impression Technique with Different Thickness of Light Body Material

Dimensional Accuracy and Stability of Silicone Putty Wash Impression Technique with Different Thickness of Light Body Material

Accuracy of complete-arch dental impressions: A new method of measuring trueness and precision

Influence of material surface on the scanning error of a powder-free 3D measuring system

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About