Cargando…

Clinical evaluation of marginal fit of uncemented CAD-CAM monolithic zirconia three-unit restorations in anterior areas, using scannable and conventional polyvinyl siloxane impression materials

BACKGROUND: The accuracy of impression techniques determines the marginal fit of fixed prostheses. Marginal accuracy plays a main role in the success and failure of treatments. This in-vivo study evaluated the marginal fit of anterior three-unit monolithic zirconia fixed partial dentures (FPDs) usin...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Kalantari, Mohammad Hassan, Abbasi, Benika, Giti, Rashin, Rastegar, Zahra, Tavanafar, Saeid, Shahsavari-pour, Sheila
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: BioMed Central 2023
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9885647/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/36717822
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12903-023-02771-z
Descripción
Sumario:BACKGROUND: The accuracy of impression techniques determines the marginal fit of fixed prostheses. Marginal accuracy plays a main role in the success and failure of treatments. This in-vivo study evaluated the marginal fit of anterior three-unit monolithic zirconia fixed partial dentures (FPDs) using conventional and scannable polyvinyl siloxane impression materials. METHODS: Ten patients were selected to replace the lateral teeth with a three-unit monolithic zirconia bridge. For each patient, in the first group, an impression was made with a two-step putty-wash technique using scannable polyvinyl siloxane material (BONASCAN; DMP, Greece). In the identical session, as the second group, an impression of conventional putty-wash polyvinyl siloxane was taken (BONASIL A(+) Putty; DMP, Greece). The marginal discrepancy was measured through the replicas, which were cut perpendicularly within the buccolingual and mesiodistal directions. An Independent t-test was employed for data analyses (P < 0.05). RESULTS: The marginal discrepancy in a conventional method for central abutment in mid-buccal, mid-lingual, mid-mesial, and mid-distal was higher than in the scannable method but it was not significant (P > 0.05). Also, the marginal discrepancy for canine abutment in the conventional method was higher than in the scannable method, but it was not significant, either (P > 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: FPDs fabricated from both scannable and conventional impression materials were not superior to each other in marginal fit for both central and canine abutments by evaluation using the replica technique.