How to make a good impression (crown and bridge)

Millar, Brian

doi:10.1038/sj.bdj.4801192

Cited by 10 publications

(3 citation statements)

References 7 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Three impression techniques are commonly used to record conventional impressions: putty wash, dual viscosity and single viscosity [11,17]. The putty-wash impression technique pairs putty and light body impression materials to record in three ways: one-stage impression, where the putty and wash are recorded simultaneously (also called twin mix or laminate technique); two-stage unspaced, where the putty is recorded first and after setting relined with a thin layer of wash; and, two-stage spaced, where a polythene spacer sheet over the putty creates space for the wash.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Factors that influence the quality of final impressions for fixed dental prostheses in Nairobi, Kenya

K. Gikunda,

A. Osiro,

O. Simila

et al. 2023

IIDM

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background:Good quality dental impressions free of air bubbles, voids, steps, drags, streaks and tears are a pre-requisite for the fabrication of well-fitting fixed dental prostheses (FDP). The quality of impressions is dependent on clinician and material factors.Aim:To evaluate factors that influence the quality of final impressions for FDP in Nairobi, Kenya. Methods:In this cross-sectional study, 234 impressions received by five dental laboratories were analyzed. The study collected information on the type of tray, impression material, technique, type of prostheses, and clinically detectable errors, including voids, inadequate material at margins, tears, steps, drags, and streaks. Impression quality was the outcome assessed as good, fair, or poor by two investigators. The independent variables influencing impression quality included clinician specialty, experience, impression material, technique, and tray type.Results: Inter-rater agreement was 96.8% (p<0.001). Clinician experience ranged between 1-45yrs, median 13.5yrs and mean 8.39±11.96yrs. The majority were GPs, 80.8% while restorative dentists were 11.5% and other specialists, 7.7%. Most impressions were non-aqueouselastomers, 97.9% employing dual-viscosity technique, 75.6%. Impression trays included stock metal, 60.3%, stock plastic, 34.2%, and custom, 5.5%. Impression quality was good, 24.8%, fair, 37.2% or poor, 38.0%. Cumulatively, 74.5% impressions hadbubbles/voids, 53.0% tears and 43.2% poor margins. Clarity of margins was associated with clinician specialty, (Fisher’s exact=9.372, p=0.047), and impression technique with impression quality, (Pearson’s χ2 = 6.385, p=0.041). Compared to restorative specialists, estimated odds of other specialists producing poor margins was 5.71, 95%CI 1.55,21.06, Wald χ2=5.24, p=0.009 while for GPs, the estimated odds was 2.19, 95%CI 0.88, 5.43, Wald χ2 = 2.86, p=0.09. Compared to dual viscosity, estimated odds of monophase giving a poor-quality impression was 1.52, 95%CI 0.83,2.78, Wald χ2 = 1.52, p=0.18.Conclusion:Most impressions were good or fair hence acceptable. Quality of impressions was influenced by clinician specialty and impression technique

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Factors that influence the quality of final impressions for fixed dental prostheses in Nairobi, Kenya

K. Gikunda,

A. Osiro,

O. Simila

et al. 2023

IIDM

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Obtaining an ideal soft-tissue displacement and a perfect impression for a fixed dental prosthesis is one of the most difficult procedures until know in dentistry [ 2 , 3 ]. Since impressions reproduce both the gingiva and the teeth, success is based on complete knowledge of the anatomy of the periodontal tissues, making an accurate preparation (predominantly at the finish line), using the appropriate impression material and proper technique [ 7 , 10 , 11 ].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Evaluation of the quality of fixed prosthesis impressions in private laboratories in a sample from Yemen

et al. 2020

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background Fixed prosthodontics require an accurate impression for the teeth and the area to be restored for the laboratory to fabricate the desired restoration without mistakes. This study evaluated the quality of impressions received by private laboratories for the fabrication of fixed prosthesis by describing the frequency of clinically detectable errors and by analyzing association between the various factors involved. Methods 165 impressions were collected from four dental laboratories. Jaw involved, type of tray, size of tray, number of prepared units, type of impression materials, techniques and viscosity in case of elastomeric impressions and type of prosthesis requested were recorded. Data referring to errors and visible defects including errors in finish line, in preparation area, in silicone impression technique and blood in impression were also documented. Factors affecting errors present were also assessed. Association between dentist gender and experience years and impression errors was assessed. Chi square and Fisher exact tests used to examine the association between categorical variables and outcomes. Results The total of error considering not immediately pouring as an error. Alginate was the most impression used. of impressions evaluated (50.9%), 97% were have at least one visible error; 92.1% had errors in finish line, 53.9% had errors in preparation area and (72.8%) of elastomeric impressions were have at least one error in technique. Blood in impression was detected in 52.1% of impressions. Significant association was found between material type and errors in finishing line and preparation area. Significant relationships were found between gender and errors in silicone impression technique (p < 0.05). Conclusion Within the limitations of this study, high frequency of detectable errors was found in fixed prosthesis impressions received by private dental laboratories. This high frequency is of serious concern, as this will result in poor fitted fixed prosthesis provided to patients.

show abstract

“…10 Since definitive impressions replicate both the tooth structure and the surrounding gingiva, success is based on creating an accurate preparation, on selecting the appropriate impression material and impression techniques, and on managing properly the periodontal tissues. 11,12 In addition to creating an area free of fluid and debris, gingival tissue should be displaced to expose the tooth finish line when making a definitive impression. 13 In order to achieve this purpose, a displacement cord has been extensively recommended.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%