Comparison of impression techniques and double pouring by dental cast’s accuracy: preliminary clinical-lab trial
Aim: This study compared impression techniques and double pouring by means of cast’s accuracy. Methods: For each patient (n=10), impressions from right maxillary canine to first molar were made with acrylic resin trays and vinyl-polysiloxane using one single-step, and four two-steps techniques: reli...
| Autores: | , , , , |
|---|---|
| Tipo de recurso: | artículo |
| Estado: | Versión publicada |
| Fecha de publicación: | 2019 |
| País: | Brasil |
| Institución: | Universidade Estadual de Campinas (UNICAMP) |
| Repositorio: | Brazilian journal of oral sciences (Online) |
| Idioma: | inglés |
| OAI Identifier: | oai:ojs.periodicos.sbu.unicamp.br:article/8657273 |
| Acceso en línea: | https://periodicos.sbu.unicamp.br/ojs/index.php/bjos/article/view/8657273 |
| Access Level: | acceso abierto |
| Palabra clave: | Dental impression materials Dental impression technique Photography, dental Dimensional measurement accuracy. |
| Sumario: | Aim: This study compared impression techniques and double pouring by means of cast’s accuracy. Methods: For each patient (n=10), impressions from right maxillary canine to first molar were made with acrylic resin trays and vinyl-polysiloxane using one single-step, and four two-steps techniques: relief with poly(vinyl chloride) film; tungsten-carbide bur/scalpel blade; small movements of the tray; non-relief. Total visible buccal surface area of crowns was measured three times using photographs from patients (Baseline) and casts. Mean area values (mm2) between Baseline and casts differences were analyzed by two-way repeated-measures ANOVA (α=.05; 1-β=85%). Results: No significant differences were observed for Impression Techniques (P=.525), Double Pouring (P=.281), and their interaction (P=.809). Conclusion: All impression techniques and double pouring produced casts with similar accuracy. |
|---|