These tools will no longer be maintained as of December 31, 2024. Archived website can be found here. PubMed4Hh GitHub repository can be found here. Contact NLM Customer Service if you have questions.


Pubmed for Handhelds

PUBMED FOR HANDHELDS

Search MEDLINE/PubMed

  • Title: Accuracy of polyether and vinylpolysiloxane impressions when using different types of 3D-printed impression trays - an in vitro study.
    Author: Rues S, Depré D, Stober T, Rammelsberg P, Zenthöfer A.
    Journal: Clin Oral Investig; 2024 Sep 30; 28(10):560. PubMed ID: 39347818.
    Abstract:
    OBJECTIVES: To investigate dimensional accuracy of polyether (PE) and vinylpolysiloxane (VPS) impressions taken with manually fabricated and 3D-printed trays. MATERIALS AND METHODS: To evaluate impression accuracy, highly precise digital data of a metallic lower jaw model with prepared teeth (regions 34 and 36), an implant (region 47) and three precision balls placed occlusally along the dental arch served as reference. PE (Impregum, 3M Oral Care) and VPS (Aquasil, Dentsply Sirona) impressions (n = 10/group) were taken with trays fabricated using different materials and manufacturing techniques (FDM: filament deposition modeling, material: Arfona Tray, Arfona; printer: Pro2, Raise3D; DLP: digital light processing, material: V-Print Tray, VOCO, printer: Max, Asiga; MPR: manual processing with light-curing plates, material: LC Tray, Müller-Omicron) including an open implant impression. Scans of resulting stone models were compared with the reference situation. Global distance and angular deviations as well as local trueness and precision for abutment teeth and scan abutment were computed. Possible statistical effects were analyzed using ANOVA. RESULTS: Clinically acceptable global accuracy was found (all mean absolute distance changes < 100 μm) and local accuracy for single abutments was excellent. All factors (abutment type, impression material, tray material) affected global accuracy (p < 0.05). In particular with PE impressions, MPR trays led to the best accuracies, both in horizontal and vertical direction. CONCLUSIONS: Within the limitations of this in vitro study, impression accuracy was high in use of both polyether and vinylpolysiloxane combined with different 3D-printed and customized trays making them recommendable for at least impressions for smaller fixed dental prostheses. Manually fabricated trays were overall still the best choice if utmost precision is required. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: Based on the results of this study, use of innovative CAD-CAM fabrication of individual impression trays fulfills the perquisites to be a viable option for impression making. In the sense of translational research, performance should be proved in a clinical setting.
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related] [New Search]