Accuracy of Three Impression Materials on the Totally Edentulous Maxilla: In Vitro/In Silico Comparative Analysis.

accuracy digital dentistry digital model edentulous maxilla impression elastomer laboratory scanner optical impression polyether polysulfide polyvinyl siloxane

Journal

Materials (Basel, Switzerland)
ISSN: 1996-1944
Titre abrégé: Materials (Basel)
Pays: Switzerland
ID NLM: 101555929

Informations de publication

Date de publication:
22 Jan 2020
Historique:
received: 30 12 2019
revised: 16 01 2020
accepted: 19 01 2020
entrez: 26 1 2020
pubmed: 26 1 2020
medline: 26 1 2020
Statut: epublish

Résumé

This study was aimed at comparing the accuracy of impressions of a reference typodont (RT) reproducing a totally edentulous maxilla made with three impression materials: polysulfide, polyether, and polyvinyl-siloxane. The RT was scanned using a desktop scanner, obtaining a reference scan. Ten impressions for each of the three tested materials were made using a mechanical device with a standardized and consistent modality. A laboratory scanner performed the digitization of each impression. We produced digital models by processing "in reverse" the scans of the physical impressions using a dedicated software, obtaining three groups (n = 10), respectively. The groups were titled: "polysulfide," "polyvinyl-siloxane," and "polyether." The scans in .stl format were imported into Geomagic Control X and then compared to RT to evaluate the accuracy of each scan by calculating trueness and precision in µm. Recorded data were subjected to descriptive statistics. Trueness (arithmetic proximity) values (95%CI) were: polysulfide = 249.9 (121.3-378.5), polyvinyl-siloxane = 216.8 (123.1-310.6), polyether = 291.1 (219.9-362.3). Precision values (95% CI) were: polysulfide = 261.9 (108.8-415), polyvinyl-siloxane = 209.4 (111.9-306.8), polyether = 283 (227.9-338.1). Statistically significant differences were not detected between the means of the experimental groups, both for trueness and precision. The accuracy of the scans obtained from polyvinyl-siloxane, polysulfide, and polyether impressions can be considered comparable in a fully edentulous maxilla.

Sections du résumé

BACKGROUND BACKGROUND
This study was aimed at comparing the accuracy of impressions of a reference typodont (RT) reproducing a totally edentulous maxilla made with three impression materials: polysulfide, polyether, and polyvinyl-siloxane.
METHODS METHODS
The RT was scanned using a desktop scanner, obtaining a reference scan. Ten impressions for each of the three tested materials were made using a mechanical device with a standardized and consistent modality. A laboratory scanner performed the digitization of each impression. We produced digital models by processing "in reverse" the scans of the physical impressions using a dedicated software, obtaining three groups (n = 10), respectively. The groups were titled: "polysulfide," "polyvinyl-siloxane," and "polyether." The scans in .stl format were imported into Geomagic Control X and then compared to RT to evaluate the accuracy of each scan by calculating trueness and precision in µm. Recorded data were subjected to descriptive statistics.
RESULTS RESULTS
Trueness (arithmetic proximity) values (95%CI) were: polysulfide = 249.9 (121.3-378.5), polyvinyl-siloxane = 216.8 (123.1-310.6), polyether = 291.1 (219.9-362.3). Precision values (95% CI) were: polysulfide = 261.9 (108.8-415), polyvinyl-siloxane = 209.4 (111.9-306.8), polyether = 283 (227.9-338.1). Statistically significant differences were not detected between the means of the experimental groups, both for trueness and precision.
CONCLUSIONS CONCLUSIONS
The accuracy of the scans obtained from polyvinyl-siloxane, polysulfide, and polyether impressions can be considered comparable in a fully edentulous maxilla.

Identifiants

pubmed: 31978974
pii: ma13030515
doi: 10.3390/ma13030515
pmc: PMC7040790
pii:
doi:

Types de publication

Journal Article

Langues

eng

Déclaration de conflit d'intérêts

The authors declare no conflict of interest. The funders had no role in the design of the study; in the collection, analyses, or interpretation of data; in the writing of the manuscript, or in the decision to publish the results.

Références

J Prosthodont Res. 2018 Jan;62(1):116-120
pubmed: 28625663
J Am Dent Assoc. 2013 Aug;144(8):914-20
pubmed: 23904578
J Prosthet Dent. 2019 Apr;121(4):623-630
pubmed: 30580982
J Prosthet Dent. 2017 Feb;117(2):233-238
pubmed: 27765399
BMC Oral Health. 2017 Jun 2;17(1):92
pubmed: 28577366
J Prosthet Dent. 2018 May;119(5):733-735
pubmed: 28888413
J Prosthet Dent. 2000 Mar;83(3):362-6
pubmed: 10709047
Br Dent J. 2000 May 13;188(9):484-92
pubmed: 10859847
J Prosthodont Res. 2017 Dec;61(4):363-370
pubmed: 27771189
Quintessence Int Dent Dig. 1979 Oct;10(10):37-51
pubmed: 399687
Am J Dent Sci. 1860 Apr;10(2):239-242
pubmed: 30752630
J Prosthodont. 2019 Apr;28(4):428-435
pubmed: 29136309
J Prosthodont. 2003 Sep;12(3):192-7
pubmed: 14508741
Gen Dent. 2000 Sep-Oct;48(5):510-2, 514, 516
pubmed: 11199630
Dent Clin North Am. 2007 Jul;51(3):629-42, vi
pubmed: 17586147
J Prosthodont Res. 2019 Jan;63(1):25-30
pubmed: 29615324
J Oral Rehabil. 2016 Oct;43(10):771-7
pubmed: 27328133
J Prosthet Dent. 1951 Jul;1(4):472-91
pubmed: 14851324
Am J Dent Sci. 1860 Jan;10(1):16-20
pubmed: 30752674
Oper Dent. 2008 Nov-Dec;33(6):644-50
pubmed: 19051857
J Prosthet Dent. 2018 Sep;120(3):389-395
pubmed: 29703675
Eur J Prosthodont Restor Dent. 2011 Dec;19(4):163-6
pubmed: 22645802
Int J Prosthodont. 2018 Apr 6;31(4):377–381
pubmed: 29624629
J Prosthet Dent. 2016 Jun;115(6):755-9
pubmed: 26794703
BMC Oral Health. 2017 Dec 12;17(1):149
pubmed: 29233132
J Prosthet Dent. 2018 Jul;120(1):20-24
pubmed: 29195814
J Prosthodont. 2019 Feb;28(2):e519-e523
pubmed: 29522269
J Prosthet Dent. 2018 May;119(5):727-732
pubmed: 28965681
Eur J Orthod. 1999 Jun;21(3):249-61
pubmed: 10407534
J Dent. 2018 Feb;69:110-118
pubmed: 29246490
J Prosthet Dent. 2013 Jun;109(6):361-6
pubmed: 23763779
J Dent Res. 2007 Feb;86(2):131-6
pubmed: 17251511
Clin Oral Investig. 2014 Jul;18(6):1687-94
pubmed: 24240949
Eur J Dent. 2016 Apr-Jun;10(2):286-291
pubmed: 27095912
Int J Dent. 2013;2013:498305
pubmed: 23737789
J Prosthet Dent. 2017 Mar;117(3):448-449
pubmed: 27881330

Auteurs

Fernando Zarone (F)

Department of Neurosciences, Reproductive and Odontostomatological Sciences, University "Federico II" of Naples, 80131 Naples, Italy.

Gennaro Ruggiero (G)

Department of Neurosciences, Reproductive and Odontostomatological Sciences, University "Federico II" of Naples, 80131 Naples, Italy.

Maria Irene Di Mauro (MI)

Department of Neurosciences, Reproductive and Odontostomatological Sciences, University "Federico II" of Naples, 80131 Naples, Italy.

Gianrico Spagnuolo (G)

Department of Neurosciences, Reproductive and Odontostomatological Sciences, University "Federico II" of Naples, 80131 Naples, Italy.

Marco Ferrari (M)

Department of Medical Biotechnologies, Division of Restorative Dentistry and Endodontics, University of Siena, 53100 Siena, Italy.

Roberto Sorrentino (R)

Department of Neurosciences, Reproductive and Odontostomatological Sciences, University "Federico II" of Naples, 80131 Naples, Italy.

Classifications MeSH