Edentulous jaw impression techniques: An in vivo comparison of trueness

Chebib, Najla; Kalberer, Nicole; Srinivasan, Murali; Maniewicz, Sabrina; Perneger, Thomas; Müller, Frauke

doi:10.1016/j.prosdent.2018.08.016

Cited by 64 publications

(80 citation statements)

References 29 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Conversely, final impressions are made with zinc-oxide eugenol pastes [12] or with elastomers such as polyethers, polyvinyl siloxanes, or polysulfides, to guarantee a good level of precision [7,13]. Some authors [29] described a third step that aimed to make a circumscribed compression of the tissues to improve prosthetic retention, with the addition of a separate layer of zinc-oxide eugenol for the inner seal [19,29].…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…In this last case, the file is reversed to obtain a positive reproduction of the digital model. Both the procedures performed with a laboratory scanner are to be considered "hybrid" as they require a physical impression, while the use of an IOS does not require any physical gypsum model or physical impression [19].…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Instead, using a laboratory scanner, it is possible to obtain digitization by scanning the physical gypsum model obtained with a conventional impression procedure or by scanning the physical impression itself. In this last case, the file is reversed to obtain a positive reproduction of the digital model [19].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Accuracy of Three Impression Materials on the Totally Edentulous Maxilla: In Vitro/In Silico Comparative Analysis

et al. 2020

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background: This study was aimed at comparing the accuracy of impressions of a reference typodont (RT) reproducing a totally edentulous maxilla made with three impression materials: polysulfide, polyether, and polyvinyl-siloxane. Methods: The RT was scanned using a desktop scanner, obtaining a reference scan. Ten impressions for each of the three tested materials were made using a mechanical device with a standardized and consistent modality. A laboratory scanner performed the digitization of each impression. We produced digital models by processing “in reverse” the scans of the physical impressions using a dedicated software, obtaining three groups (n = 10), respectively. The groups were titled: “polysulfide,” “polyvinyl-siloxane,” and “polyether”. The scans in .stl format were imported into Geomagic Control X and then compared to RT to evaluate the accuracy of each scan by calculating trueness and precision in µm. Recorded data were subjected to descriptive statistics. Results: Trueness (arithmetic proximity) values (95%CI) were: polysulfide = 249.9 (121.3–378.5), polyvinyl-siloxane = 216.8 (123.1–310.6), polyether = 291.1 (219.9–362.3). Precision values (95% CI) were: polysulfide = 261.9 (108.8–415), polyvinyl-siloxane = 209.4 (111.9–306.8), polyether = 283 (227.9–338.1). Statistically significant differences were not detected between the means of the experimental groups, both for trueness and precision. Conclusions: The accuracy of the scans obtained from polyvinyl-siloxane, polysulfide, and polyether impressions can be considered comparable in a fully edentulous maxilla.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Accuracy of Three Impression Materials on the Totally Edentulous Maxilla: In Vitro/In Silico Comparative Analysis

et al. 2020

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Recently introduced, new generation intraoral scanners are promoted as being suitable for scanning of extended or even completely edentulous ridges, even without reference markings, as suggested by some authors [22,23]. The present study aimed to analyze the accuracy (trueness and precision) of IOS in completely and partially edentulous maxillary and mandibular models.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 98%

Accuracy of intraoral scanning in completely and partially edentulous maxillary and mandibular jaws: an in vitro analysis

et al. 2020

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objectives New generation intraoral scanners are promoted to be suitable for digital scans of long-span edentulous spaces and completely edentulous arches; however, the evidence is lacking. The current study evaluated the accuracy of intraoral scanning (IOS) in partially and completely edentulous arch models and analyzed the influence of operator experience on accuracy. Materials and methods Four different resin models (completely and partially edentulous maxilla and mandible) were scanned, using a new generation IOS device (n = 20 each). Ten scans of each model were performed by an IOS-experienced and an inexperienced operator. An industrial high-precision scanner was employed to obtain reference scans. IOS files of each modeloperator combination, their respective reference scan files (n = 10 each; total = 80), as well as the IOS files from each model generated by the same operator, were superimposed (n = 45; total = 360) to calculate trueness and precision. An ANOVA for mixed models and post hoc t tests for mixed models were used to assess group-wise differences (α = 0.05). Results The median overall trueness and precision were 24.2 μm (IQR 20.7-27.4 μm) and 18.3 μm (IQR 14.4-22.1 μm), respectively. The scans of the inexperienced operator had significantly higher trueness in the edentulous mandibular model (p = 0.0001) and higher precision in the edentulous maxillary model (p = 0.0004). Conclusion The accuracy of IOS for partially and completely edentulous arches in in vitro settings was high. Experience with IOS had small influence on the accuracy of the scans. Clinical relevance IOS with the tested new generation intraoral scanner may be suitable for the fabrication of removable dentures regardless of clinician's experience in IOS.

show abstract

“…Eugenol, in combination with zinc oxide (ZOE), is one of the most common materials used as a root canal sealer in endodontics [1][2][3][4][5], as well as a pulp sedative in cases of pulpotomies [6][7][8][9] and an impression material for edentulous patients [10][11][12][13]. In restorative dentistry, ZOE cements are frequently applied as temporary materials during indirect restorations [14].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Determining the Effects of Eugenol on the Bond Strength of Resin-Based Restorative Materials to Dentin: A Meta-Analysis of the Literature

et al. 2020

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The aim of this study was to determine whether the residual presence of eugenol in coronal dentin may compromise the bond strength of resin-based restorative materials. A search was performed on MEDLINE/Pubmed, Scopus, and by hand search for relevant papers. No restriction was applied for language and publication date. The studies selected for analysis tested specimens with reduced size (micro-shear bond strength (µSBS) and micro-tensile bond strength (µTBS)) of adhesive systems and resin-based restorative materials applied to coronary dentin “contaminated” with eugenol-based materials. The search provided 335 articles, but only 10 studies met the inclusion criteria. The pooled global analysis showed a significant influence of eugenol, as it negatively influenced the bond strength of resin-based restorations (5.79 (3.31–8.28) MPa, p < 0.00001). The subgroup analyses for conventional etch-and-rinse (p = 0.003) and self-etch (p < 0.0004) adhesive systems, as well as for µSBS (p = 0.01) and µTBS (p < 0.0001), showed a negative influence of eugenol on the bond strength. Data were statistically heterogeneous. However, it was possible to observe that eugenol could negatively affect the bonding of resin-based restorative materials to dentin. Further evidence is necessary in order to acquire more accurate information about this issue and confirm that the residual presence of eugenol in dentin compromises the bond strength of resin-based materials.

show abstract

Edentulous jaw impression techniques: An in vivo comparison of trueness

Cited by 64 publications

References 29 publications

Accuracy of Three Impression Materials on the Totally Edentulous Maxilla: In Vitro/In Silico Comparative Analysis

Accuracy of Three Impression Materials on the Totally Edentulous Maxilla: In Vitro/In Silico Comparative Analysis

Accuracy of intraoral scanning in completely and partially edentulous maxillary and mandibular jaws: an in vitro analysis

Determining the Effects of Eugenol on the Bond Strength of Resin-Based Restorative Materials to Dentin: A Meta-Analysis of the Literature

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About