The quality of working impressions for the fabrication of fixed prosthodontics prostheses (crown and bridgework)

Abstract

Objective: The study was carried out to assess the quality of working impressions sent to commercial laboratories for fabrication of fixed prostheses. Materials and Methods: Impressions (n: 200) received by four dental laboratories were evaluated by two calibrated examiners. The type of work, tray designs, impression materials and techniques were recorded for each impression. Quality data on crucial details of the tooth preparations, voids at tooth preparations, tears along the finished margin line and flow of materials were documented and each criterion scored either with 2 (Good), 1 (Acceptable) or 0 (Unacceptable). The Chi-square test for independence was done for relationship analysis of the impression defects and different type of impression materials. Results: From 200 examined impressions, 53.9% were for crown works, 35.9% bridge works, 1.4% posts and cores and 8.8% for other types of work. The impression materials used were polyether (39.5%) and polyvinyl-siloxane (60.5%). The two main types of trays were metal stock (48.5%) and disposable plastic (37.5%). Impression techniques were monophase one-step technique (50.0%), putty wash two-steps technique (23.5%), putty wash one-step technique (15.5%) and dual phase one-step technique (11.0%). Overall, 64.5% of the impressions sent had unacceptable quality (0 score recorded for at least one criteria). The proportions of impression defects were significant to the type of impression materials (P < 0.05). Conclusion: The percentage of unacceptable impressions (64.5%) sent to the laboratories is a serious concern, as it contributes to the inaccuracy of the crown and bridgeworks provided to patients.

Keywords

Fixed prosthodontics - impressions quality - polyvinyl-siloxane

Publikationsverlauf

Artikel online veröffentlicht:
01. November 2021

• References

• 1 The glossary of prosthodontic terms. The Academy of Prosthodontics. J Prosthet Dent 1999;71:41-112.
• 2 Piwowarczyk A, Ottl P, Büchler A, Lauer HC, Hoffmann A. In vitro study on the dimensional accuracy of selected materials for monophase elastic impression making. Int J Prosthodont 2002;15:168-74.
• 3 Ceyhan JA, Johnson GH, Lepe X. The effect of tray selection, viscosity of impression material, and sequence of pour on the accuracy of dies made from dual-arch impressions. J Prosthet Dent 2003;90:143-9.
• 4 Joshi PR, Bharat GS, Shrenoy V. Comparative evaluation of dimensional accuracy of addition silicone and condensation silicone. Malays Dent J 2009;30:34-42.
• 5 Thongthammachat S, Moore BK, Barco MT 2nd , Hovijitra S, Brown DT, Andres CJ. Dimensional accuracy of dental casts: Influence of tray material, impression material, and time. J Prosthodont 2002;11:98-108.
• 6 Samet N, Shohat M, Livny A, Weiss EI. A clinical evaluation of fixed partial denture impressions. J Prosthet Dent 2005;94:112-7.
• 7 O′Brien WJ. Dental Materials and their selection. 3 rd ed. Quintessence Publishing Co, Inc; 2002. p. 90-112
• 8 Ghani SM. The accuracy of impressions made using ′BorderlockMouldable Trays′. Unpublished MClinDent dissertation. University of Edinburgh; 2010.