Cargando…
Is a Wiggling-Motion Modified Two-Step Impression Technique as Accurate as Conventional Techniques in Restorative Dentistry?
Background: The purpose of this study was to evaluate dental impression accuracy of one-step and two-step techniques compared to a modified two-step technique. Methods: Four impression techniques were compared: (1) a one-step double mix (DM) technique, (2) a cut-out (CO) technique, in which space re...
Autores principales: | , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
MDPI
2023
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10217051/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/37232790 http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/dj11050139 |
_version_ | 1785048443252637696 |
---|---|
author | Zappi, Anastasia Papazoglou, Efstratios Anagnostou, Maria |
author_facet | Zappi, Anastasia Papazoglou, Efstratios Anagnostou, Maria |
author_sort | Zappi, Anastasia |
collection | PubMed |
description | Background: The purpose of this study was to evaluate dental impression accuracy of one-step and two-step techniques compared to a modified two-step technique. Methods: Four impression techniques were compared: (1) a one-step double mix (DM) technique, (2) a cut-out (CO) technique, in which space relief was created using a blade and a laboratory bur, (3) a membrane (ME) technique, in which space relief was created by placing a PVC membrane on top of the putty material during the primary impression, and (4) a wiggling motion (WI) technique, in which PVC membrane was placed and additional wiggling movements were performed during the first 20 s when the primary impression was seated upon the master model (MM). Impressions were poured with type IV stone. Casts were scanned with a laboratory scanner and measurements were made for each cast using three-dimensional analysis software. Results: All groups presented differences compared to MM group, in at least one intra-abutment distance. Groups DM and ME presented the most significant differences, in three and two distances, respectively, whereas CO and WI presented one significant different distance compared to MM. There were no differences between MM and the four techniques for inter-abutment distances. Conclusions: WI yielded similar results with CO technique. Both performed better than the other groups. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-10217051 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2023 |
publisher | MDPI |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-102170512023-05-27 Is a Wiggling-Motion Modified Two-Step Impression Technique as Accurate as Conventional Techniques in Restorative Dentistry? Zappi, Anastasia Papazoglou, Efstratios Anagnostou, Maria Dent J (Basel) Article Background: The purpose of this study was to evaluate dental impression accuracy of one-step and two-step techniques compared to a modified two-step technique. Methods: Four impression techniques were compared: (1) a one-step double mix (DM) technique, (2) a cut-out (CO) technique, in which space relief was created using a blade and a laboratory bur, (3) a membrane (ME) technique, in which space relief was created by placing a PVC membrane on top of the putty material during the primary impression, and (4) a wiggling motion (WI) technique, in which PVC membrane was placed and additional wiggling movements were performed during the first 20 s when the primary impression was seated upon the master model (MM). Impressions were poured with type IV stone. Casts were scanned with a laboratory scanner and measurements were made for each cast using three-dimensional analysis software. Results: All groups presented differences compared to MM group, in at least one intra-abutment distance. Groups DM and ME presented the most significant differences, in three and two distances, respectively, whereas CO and WI presented one significant different distance compared to MM. There were no differences between MM and the four techniques for inter-abutment distances. Conclusions: WI yielded similar results with CO technique. Both performed better than the other groups. MDPI 2023-05-22 /pmc/articles/PMC10217051/ /pubmed/37232790 http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/dj11050139 Text en © 2023 by the authors. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/). |
spellingShingle | Article Zappi, Anastasia Papazoglou, Efstratios Anagnostou, Maria Is a Wiggling-Motion Modified Two-Step Impression Technique as Accurate as Conventional Techniques in Restorative Dentistry? |
title | Is a Wiggling-Motion Modified Two-Step Impression Technique as Accurate as Conventional Techniques in Restorative Dentistry? |
title_full | Is a Wiggling-Motion Modified Two-Step Impression Technique as Accurate as Conventional Techniques in Restorative Dentistry? |
title_fullStr | Is a Wiggling-Motion Modified Two-Step Impression Technique as Accurate as Conventional Techniques in Restorative Dentistry? |
title_full_unstemmed | Is a Wiggling-Motion Modified Two-Step Impression Technique as Accurate as Conventional Techniques in Restorative Dentistry? |
title_short | Is a Wiggling-Motion Modified Two-Step Impression Technique as Accurate as Conventional Techniques in Restorative Dentistry? |
title_sort | is a wiggling-motion modified two-step impression technique as accurate as conventional techniques in restorative dentistry? |
topic | Article |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10217051/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/37232790 http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/dj11050139 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT zappianastasia isawigglingmotionmodifiedtwostepimpressiontechniqueasaccurateasconventionaltechniquesinrestorativedentistry AT papazoglouefstratios isawigglingmotionmodifiedtwostepimpressiontechniqueasaccurateasconventionaltechniquesinrestorativedentistry AT anagnostoumaria isawigglingmotionmodifiedtwostepimpressiontechniqueasaccurateasconventionaltechniquesinrestorativedentistry |