A Comparison of Dimensional Accuracy of Addition Silicone of Different Consistencies with Two Different Spacer Designs - In-vitro Study.
INTRODUCTION
Dimensional accuracy of impression materials is crucial for the production of working casts in Fixed Prosthodontics. The accurate replication of tooth preparations and their arch position requires impression materials that exhibit limited distortion.


METHODS
This study was conducted to comparatively evaluate the dimensional accuracy of additional silicones by comparing two different techniques and spacer designs, by measuring the linear changes in interpreparation distance. The impressions were made from a stainless steel master die simulating a three unit bridge. A total 80 die stone (type IV, Ultrarock) models were obtained from the impressions made using two different parameters. The two different parameters are Multimix and Monophasic technique and different spacer designs.


RESULT
The interpreparation distance of the abutments in the casts was measured using a travelling microscope. Each sample was measured thrice and the mean value was calculated. The results obtained were statistically analysed and the values fall within the clinically acceptable range.


CONCLUSION
The most accurate combination is multimix technique with spacer design which uses less bulk of impression material.
Influence of tray rigidity and impression technique on accuracy of polyvinyl siloxane impressions.
PURPOSE
The aim of this study was to determine how tray rigidity and impression technique affect the accuracy of polyvinyl siloxane impressions.


MATERIALS AND METHODS
Disposable plastic trays and metallic Rim-Lock trays were used in combination with a heavy/light body technique or with two different putty-wash techniques. For each technique-tray combination, 10 impressions were made of a master cast with two steel abutments representing the mandibular right first premolar and second molar, between which a steel rod was placed at the ridge level. Each steel abutment had five marks, while the steel rod in between the two abutments had only one mark, which served as a reference point. With a universal measuring microscope, the x-, y-, and z-coordinates were recorded for each mark on the master cast and impressions. The distances between the different marks and the reference point on the impressions were calculated and compared with those of the master cast.


RESULTS
All techniques used with the plastic trays had distances that were significantly different from the master cast (P < .05), while for the metal trays, it was only the heavy/light body technique that resulted in distances that were significantly different from the master cast (P < .05).


CONCLUSION
Plastic trays produced less accurate impressions than metal trays. When metal trays were used, putty-based impressions were dimensionally better than heavy/light body impressions.
Accuracy of casts generated from dual-arch impressions.
STATEMENT OF PROBLEM
Dual-arch trays are often used to make simultaneous impressions of a prepared tooth and the opposing teeth. Many dentists are concerned with the accuracy of the casts generated from this type of impression.


PURPOSE
The purpose of this investigation was to compare the accuracy of stone casts of a prepared tooth generated using 2 types of dual-arch impression tray/impression material combinations.


MATERIAL AND METHODS
The maxillary left first molar on a dentoform mounted on an articulator was prepared for a full-coverage gold crown. Ten impressions were made with either a plastic (P) or metal (M) tray and a polyether (PE) or vinyl polysiloxane (VPS) impression material. Each impression was cast in improved dental stone, and the buccolingual dimension of the die was measured at the midpoint of the buccal and lingual gingival margins. The prepared tooth (T) served as the control. The data were analyzed using a 2-factor analysis of variance (ANOVA) alpha=.05.


RESULTS
The P/VPS combination (10.673 mm) produced the largest die, followed by P/PE (10.602), T (10.508), M/PE (10.484), and M/VPS (10.472). The 2-factor ANOVA showed a significant difference between the tray types but not between the impression materials.


CONCLUSION
The metal trays produced dies smaller than the tooth, and the plastic trays produced dies that were larger.