Evaluation of the effect of chemical disinfection and ultraviolet disinfection on the dimensional stability of polyether impression material: an in-vitro study.

BACKGROUND: Various methods, chemical and physical, disinfect dental impressions. Common chemicals include 1% Sodium Hypochlorite and 2% glutaraldehyde, while UV radiation is a prevalent physical method. Few studies compare their effects on dimensional stability in polyether impressions. This study aims to assess such stability using different disinfection methods. Therefore, this study was planned to evaluate the dimensional stability of polyether impression material using different disinfection methods. METHODS: This in vitro study compared the effects of chemical disinfectants (1% Sodium Hypochlorite and 2% glutaraldehyde) and UV irradiation on the dimensional stability of polyether impression material. Groups A, B, C, and D, each with ten samples (N = 10), were studied. Group A was untreated (control). Group B was treated with 2% glutaraldehyde for 20 min, Group C with 1% Sodium Hypochlorite for 20 min, and Group D with UV rays for 20 min. A pilot milling machine drill was used to make four parallel holes labeled A, B, C, and D in the anterior and premolar regions from right to left. After sequential drilling, four implant analogs were positioned using a surveyor for accuracy. Ten open-tray polyether impressions were made and treated as described in the groups, followed by pouring the corresponding casts. Distortion values for each disinfection method were measured using a coordinate measuring machine capable of recording on the X- and Y-axes. RESULTS: A comprehensive analysis was conducted using the one-way ANOVA test for distinct groups labeled A, B, C, and D, revealing significant differences in the mean distances for X1, X2, X4, X5, and X6 among the groups, with p-values ranging from 0.001 to 0.000. However, no significant differences were observed in X3. Notably, mean distances for the Y variables exhibited substantial differences among the groups, emphasizing parameter variations, with p-values ranging from 0.000 to 0.033. The results compared the four groups using the one-way ANOVA test, revealing statistically significant distance differences for most X and Y variables, except for X3 and Y4. Similarly, post-hoc Tukey's tests provided specific pairwise comparisons, underlining the distinctions between group C and the others in the mean and deviation distances for various variables on both the X- and Y-axes. CONCLUSIONS: This study found that disinfection with 1% sodium hypochlorite or UV rays for 20 min maintained dimensional stability in polyether impressions.

Influence of intraoral scanning coverage on the accuracy of digital implant impressions - An in vitro study.

OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the influence of intraoral scanning coverage (IOSC) on digital implant impression accuracy in various partially edentulous situations and predict the optimal IOSC. METHODS: Five types of resin models were fabricated, each simulating single or multiple tooth loss scenarios with inserted implants and scan bodies. IOSC was subgrouped to cover two, four, six, eight, ten, and twelve teeth, as well as full arch. Each group underwent ten scans. A desktop scanner served as the reference. Accuracy was evaluated by measuring the Root mean square error (RMSE) values of scan bodies. A convolutional neural network (CNN) was trained to predict the optimal IOSC with different edentulous situations. Statistical analysis was performed using one-way ANOVA and Tukey's test. RESULTS: For single-tooth-missing situations, in anterior sites, significantly better accuracy was observed in groups with IOSC ranging from four teeth to full arch (p < 0.05). In premolar sites, IOSC spanning four to six teeth were more accurate (p < 0.05), while in molar sites, groups with IOSC encompassing two to eight teeth exhibited better accuracy (p < 0.05). For multiple-teeth-missing situations, IOSC covering four, six, and eight teeth, as well as full arch showed better accuracy in anterior gaps (p < 0.05). In posterior gaps, IOSC of two, four, six or eight teeth were more accurate (p < 0.05). The CNN predicted distinct optimal IOSC for different edentulous scenarios. CONCLUSIONS: Implant impression accuracy can be significantly impacted by IOSC in different partially edentulous situations. The selection of IOSC should be customized to the specific dentition defect condition. CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE: The number of teeth scanned can significantly affect digital implant impression accuracy. For missing single or four anterior teeth, scan at least four or six neighboring teeth is acceptable. In lateral cases, two neighboring teeth may suffice, but extending over ten teeth, including contralateral side, might deteriorate the scan.

Precision Matters: The Evolution of Impression Systems and Materials.

The clinical success of indirect restorations is directly correlated with their specific anatomic shape and design as well as marginal accuracy and overall precision of fit. These factors require a precise impression of the preparation and, to the extent necessary and possible, other teeth and supporting hard and soft tissues.

A Comparative Evaluation of Three Methods of Disinfection of Gypsum Casts and the Changes in Surface Roughness and Dimensional Accuracy after Disinfection-An Ex Vivo Study.

BACKGROUND: One of the major problems of everyday dental practice is cross-contamination. It can place office personnel, dentists, and patients at risk of acquiring serious illness. Disinfection helps in controlling this cross-contamination to an extent. The evaluation was done to find the efficient disinfection method on gypsum casts. AIMS: The aim of this study is to evaluate and compare the efficacy of three methods of disinfection of gypsum casts, namely, chemical disinfection by immersion, spray method, and microwave method, and also to evaluate and compare changes in surface roughness and dimensional accuracy between the three methods after disinfection. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Ex vivo and experimental study. Thirty participants were selected, and impressions of the maxillary arch were made using polyvinyl siloxane impression material. Ninety type IV die stone gypsum casts were poured. It was divided into three groups and was subjected to chemical disinfection by immersion and spray methods, and microwave method. The disinfected casts were evaluated for microbial growth, surface roughness, and dimensional accuracy. It was performed by using the one-way analysis of variance test and paired t-test followed by the Kruskal - Wallis test and Wilcoxon signed rank test (α = 0.05). RESULTS: Microwave disinfection was more effective than both immersion and spray chemical disinfection methods (P < 0.010 and <0.001). The surface roughness of the microwave-irradiated casts had significantly increased after disinfection. However, there were no significant dimensional changes by any of the methods of disinfection. CONCLUSION: Within the limitations of the study, the microwave method of disinfection is more effective in eradicating microorganisms when compared to chemical methods of disinfection by immersion and spray methods.

Accuracy of Silicone Impressions and Stone Models Using Two Laboratory Scanners: A 3D Evaluation.

PURPOSE: To evaluate the in vitro accuracy of impressions obtained with two silicone and corresponding stone models using two laboratory scanners. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A master model with synthetic resin teeth with two single-unit crown preparations was created and scanned using a 12-megapixel scanner. Five conventional impressions of the physical model were prepared with different silicone impression systems (Zhermack and Coltene) using the double-mix technique and poured with gypsum. The impressions and stone models obtained were scanned using two extraoral scanning systems (Identica T500, Medit; S600 ARTI, Zirkonzahn). All best-fit superimpositions of the teeth areas were conducted between the master model and the scans of the impressions and models obtained with the two scanners. A P < .05 level was considered significant. RESULTS: The Identica T500 Medit scanner showed an accuracy of 102.34 (89.67, 115.01) µm for Coltene silicone and 79.51 (67.82, 91.21) µm for Zhermack silicone, while the S600 ARTI Zirkonzhan scanner presented 110.79 (98.24, 123.33) µm and 91.91 (81.29, 102.54) µm, respectively, with significant differences between scanners for Zhermack silicone (P = .008) and for the corresponding stone models (P = .002). Zhermack silicone presented overall discrepancies lower than Coltene silicone, with statistically significant differences in both scanners analyzed (P < .001; P = .017). However, the discrepancies found were within clinically acceptable values. With the Zirkonzahn scanner, discrepancies found in the Zhermack impressions were lower than in the corresponding stone models (P < .001). CONCLUSIONS: The direct digitization of silicone impressions with laboratory scanners presented comparable results to conventional techniques with stone models.

Clinical comparative study on the accuracy of palatal rugae in models obtained by different impression materials and intraoral scanning.

OBJECTIVE: Palatal rugae are frequently used in the evaluation of tooth movement after treatment in orthodontics and as a stable region in superimposition. It is important to note that the impression method and material used to record the rugae region affect the accuracy of the impression. The aim of this study is to compare the accuracy of palatal rugae, in three-dimensional (3D) by employing both conventional and digital impression methods. MATERIALS AND METHODS: In this study, 22 patients (12 females, 10 males) mean age of 13.5 ± 1.7 years old were selected with complete permanent dentition. Three different impressions were taken from the maxillae of the patients: conventional impression using silicone rubber impression material, conventional impression using alginate impression material, and optical impression using an intraoral scanner. The impressions' digital data were analyzed by the GOM Inspect (Version 2018, Braunschweig, Germany), a 3D analysis software. The Root Mean Square (RMS) values of the total ruga region were evaluated in this software. The data were statistically analyzed using the Jamovi program. The Kruskal-Wallis test and Mann-Whitney U test were performed due to the non-normal distribution of the data. RESULTS: There is no statistically significant difference between the comparison points of the right and left rugae's medial and lateral points and total rugae regions' RMS values. Although there was no statistically significant difference, the total RMS values of alginate and digital scan measurements showed closer results than the RMS values of silicone and digital scan measurements. CONCLUSION: The study found that there was no statistically significant difference in the total RMS values of the ruga region between traditional and digital impression methods. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: The treatment period in orthodontics is long. Different impression materials and methods can be used for diagnostic, mid-treatment, and final impressions. For superimpositions and treatment and post-treatment palatal ruga evaluations, traditional and digital impression methods are clinically acceptable and can be used as alternatives to each other.

Comparison of 3D positional accuracy of implant analogs in printed resin models versus conventional stone casts: Effect of implant angulation.

PURPOSE: To study the effect of implant angulation on 3D linear and absolute angular distortions of implant analogs in printed resin models and conventional stone casts. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Three sectional master models with two implants with total inter-implant angulations of 0°, 10°, and 20° were fabricated. For each master model, five conventional stone casts (CS) and printed resin models (PM) were fabricated (n = 5). Test models were made with nonsplinted impression copings and open tray polyether impressions for the CS groups and scan bodies scanned using an intraoral scanner for the PM groups. The physical positions of the implants and implant analogs were measured with a coordinate measuring machine. 3D linear distortion (ΔR) and absolute angular distortion (Absdθ) defined the 3D positional accuracy of the analogs in the test models. Univariate ANOVA was used to analyze data followed by post hoc tests (Tukey HSD, α = 0.05). RESULTS: Mean ΔR was significantly greater for PM10 (73.5 ± 8.9 µm) and PM20 (65.5 ± 33.3 µm) compared to CS0 (16.8 ± 14.1 µm), CS10 (22.2 ± 13.0 µm), CS20 (15.6 ± 19.9 µm), and PM0 (23.9 ± 16.1 µm). For Absdθ, there were no significant differences between test groups. CONCLUSIONS: With conventional stone casts, implant angulation had no significant effect on 3D linear and absolute angular distortions. Amongst printed resin models test groups, angulated implants had significantly greater ΔR. Amongst angulated implants test groups, printed resin models had significantly greater ΔR than conventional stone casts. Compared to the master model, all test groups, regardless of inter-implant angulation, produced greater inter-analog distances.

Chairside 3-D printed impression trays: a new approach to increase the accuracy of conventional implant impression taking? An in vitro study.

PURPOSE: A high transfer accuracy of the intraoral implant position to a model is required, to manufacture implant-supported restorations. However, clinically relevant deviations persist between the intraoral implant position and the model obtained, even for the benchmark conventional custom implant impressions with polyether. Thus, new approaches using 3-D printed impression trays may increase the transfer accuracy of implant impressions. The ability to adjust parameters such as the thickness of the layers and the influence of the openings in the impression tray could potentially affect accuracy. METHODS: Four different types of impression trays (n = 10 for each group) for the conventional impression technique were investigated: conventional custom impression tray, customized foil tray, chairside 3-D printed impression tray with the SHERA system, and the Primeprint system using an implant master model with four implants in the posterior region and a reference cube. After plaster model casting, all models were measured using a coordinate measuring machine, and the deviation from the reference dataset was determined. A statistical ANOVA analysis was performed (p < 0.05). RESULTS: Chairside 3-D printed impression trays showed the best results, followed by conventional custom impression trays. Implant impressions obtained using a customized foil tray exhibited the lowest accuracy. Statistically significant differences were observed between 3-D printed impression trays and conventional custom impression and customized foil trays (p < 0.05). Whereas, the implant position did not have any significant influence on accuracy (p > 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: Chairside 3-D printed impression trays significantly increase the transfer accuracy for implant impression taking.

3D Accuracy of a Conventional Method Versus Three Digital Scanning Strategies for Completely Edentulous Maxillary Implant Impressions.

PURPOSE: To compare the 3D accuracy of three scanning strategies and conventional impressions using an edentulous model with six implants. MATERIALS AND METHODS: An edentulous maxillary master model was fabricated with six equigingival internal connection implants at 0 degrees of angulation. Ten conventional open-tray splinted implant-level impressions were made and poured in stone. A master model and conventional casts were digitized with a reference scanner. Digital impressions were made by calibrated clinicians with a TRIOS 3 intraoral scanner ([IOS] 3Shape) according to three scanning strategies: DIG1 (occlusal-palatal-lingual), DIG2 (S-type motion from buccal to palatal), and DIG3 (scanning two half arches and connecting them at the midline). Each technique was repeated 10 times on the master model. Deviations from the STL datasets (N = 40) were compared to those of the reference master model using the Hexagon Metrology software system PC-DMIS CAD++. Linear distortions (dX, dY, dZ), global linear distortion (dR), and angular distortions (Absdθx, Absdθy) were calculated. Kruskal-Wallis test and mixed linear and logistic regression models were used to compare the original and binary distortion measures between the techniques. RESULTS: The mean dR ranged from 91 µm (conventional method) to 183 µm (DIG1). The mean angular distortion ranged from 0.20 degrees (Absdθx for DIG2) to 0.69 degrees (Absdθy for DIG3). No scan pattern resulted in a more accurate reproduction in any of the measured parameters than the conventional impression method. There were significant differences between the methods for all distortion measures. CONCLUSIONS: No group reproduced the 3D position of the six-implant master model below the thresholds for both global linear and angular distortions. All the digital strategies tested were less accurate than the conventional open-tray splinted implant-level impression technique.

Comparative evaluation of open tray impression technique: investigating the precision of four splinting materials in multiple implants.

BACKGROUND: This study aimed to determine the relative positioning accuracy of multiple implants utilizing four distinct types of splinting materials. METHODS: The purpose of this in-vitro study was to compare the precision of four splinting materials in an open tray impression technique in multiple implant situations. Based on the material used for splinting, four groups were made (n = 40)- Group A: Conventional Method, Group B: Prefabricated Pattern Resin Framework, Group C: Prefabricated Metal Framework, Group D: Light Cured Pattern Resin, these groups were compared with the master model. A heat-cured clear acrylic resin and a master model were constructed. A pilot milling machine drill was used to drill four parallel holes in the anterior and premolar regions, which were later labeled as A, B, C, and D positions from right to left. Then, sequential drilling was carried out, and four 3.75­mm diameter and 13-mm long ADIN implant analogs with internal hex were placed in the acrylic model using a surveyor for proper orientation. The impression posts were then manually screwed to the implant analogs using an open tray, and they were secured to the implants using 10 mm flat head guide pins with a 15 N.cm torque. 10 Open tray polyether impressions were made, and casts were poured. Each splinting method's distortion values were measured using a coordinate measuring machine capable of recordings in the X-, Y-, and Z-axes. Comparison of mean distances for X1, X2, and X3 was made using the Kruskal-Wallis test, and Pairwise comparison was done using Post Hoc Tukey's Test. RESULTS: The differences between the groups were significant when assessing the distances X1, X2, and X3 (p < 0.05). The comparison of deviations between the groups revealed a statistically significant difference (p < 0.05) for the deviation distance X3 but not for the deviation distances X1 and X2. For distance Y1, the difference between the groups was statistically significant (p0.05), but it was not significant for distances Y2 and Y3. A statistically significant difference was seen in the comparison between the groups (p < 0.05) for the deviation distances Y1, Y2, and Y3. The results were statistically significant for the distance Z1 comparisons, namely, control vs. Group A (p = 0.012), control vs. Group B (p = 0.049), control vs. Group C (p = 0.048), and control vs. Group D (p = 0.021), and for distance Z3 comparison for control vs. Group A (p = 0.033). The results were statistically insignificant for the distance Z2 comparisons (p > 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: All splinting materials produced master casts with measurements in close proximity to the reference model. However, prefabricated pattern resin bars splinting showed the highest accuracy among the studied techniques. The most recent splinting techniques using prefabricated metal framework and light-cure pattern resin showed similar accuracy.

[Effect of different kinds of gingival retraction agents on the polymerization inhibition of polyvinyl siloxane impression materials].

PURPOSE: To evaluate the effect of different kinds of gingival retraction agents after directly contacted with polyvinyl siloxane impression materials on polymerization inhibition and the inhibition degree. METHODS: Five kinds of gingival retraction agents (0.1% epinephrine hydrochloride, 0.05% oxymetazoline, 15.5% ferric sulfate, 25% aluminum chloride and 5% aluminum chloride) were chosen, normal saline was as control group, and two kinds of polyvinyl siloxane impression materials (ExpressTM, ImprintTM Ⅱ) were combined into 12 groups. There were 12 specimens in each group and 144 specimens in total. Silicone rubber impression materials were mixed by the same operator using a dispensing gun into the acrylic mold, so that they could directly contact the gingival retraction agents on the densely woven cotton fabrics. The samples were removed when the polymerization time arrived according to the manufactures' recommendations and then placed under a stereomicroscope with a magnification of 10 times to observe whether polymerization inhibition occurred, the degree of inhibition was compared afterwards. SPSS 22.0 software package was used for statistical analysis. RESULTS: The polymerization inhibition of two kinds of silicone rubber impression materials occurred in 15.5% ferric sulfate group and 25% aluminum chloride group, and the inhibition occurrence rate was 100%, the difference was statistically significant (P＜0.05) compared with normal saline group. Inhibition was not found in 0.1% epinephrine hydrochloride group, 0.05% oxymetazoline group and 5% aluminum chloride. The effect of 15.5% ferric sulfate and 25% aluminum chloride on polymerization inhibition degree of ImprintTM Ⅱ was greater than ExpressTM, and the difference was statistically significant(P＜0.05). CONCLUSIONS: When silicone rubber impression material is used during impression procedure, attention should be paid to the effect of the gingival retraction agent containing 15.5% ferric sulfate and 25% aluminum chloride on its polymerization. The gingival retraction agent should be washed before impression to avoid the residue directly contacting the silicone rubber to prevent polymerization.

Accuracy of Indirect Veneer Mock-Up in Comparison to Diagnostic Wax-Up.

PURPOSE: To evaluate the dimensional discrepancy between the diagnostic wax-up and the resulting mock-up. MATERIAL AND METHODS: A maxillary model with misaligned teeth was scanned, and an initial cast was 3D printed. A total of 60 identical casts were 3D printed from the initial one after scanning. Based on a digital additive veneer wax-up on the six anterior teeth, 10 more casts were 3D printed. The specimens were allocated to seven groups (n = 10) as follows-group 1: transparent silicone matrix with a flowable light-cured composite resin; group 2: same as group 1 but with the addition of a prefabricated transparent tray; group 3: silicone impression putty (65 Shore A) and light-body silicone impression material with a dual-cured bisacryl resin; group 4: same as group 3 but without the light-body silicone; group 5: silicone laboratory putty (92 Shore A) with a dual-cured bisacryl resin; group 6: silicone laboratory putty (92 Shore A) with PMMA; group 7: wax-up casts (control). Scans from the mock-ups were coregistered, segmented, and superimposed with the scans from the wax-up. The difference between the mock-up and the wax-up was quantified by morphologic operations. Results were analyzed by Kruskal-Wallis test and Dunn post hoc test (P < .05). RESULTS: All mock-ups were larger than the wax-up. Significant differences were found for every labial surface third. The incisal third was the least accurate third while the middle third the most accurate. The most accurate were groups 2 and 5, and the largest discrepancy was observed in group 6. CONCLUSIONS: The analog mock-up differs dimensionally from the wax-up, regardless of the technique/materials used.

A Comparison of the Accuracy Between a Digital Fabrication Workflow and a Conventional Fabrication Workflow for Occlusal Appliances: A Pilot Study.

PURPOSE: To compare the accuracy of occlusal stabilization appliances fabricated by digital workflows to those fabricated by conventional workflows. MATERIALS AND METHODS: In total, 10 volunteers were recruited in this single-blinded crossover study. All volunteers received two types of occlusal stabilization appliances: a digital additively manufactured stabilization splint (DS) and a conventionally fabricated splint (CS). The accuracy was assessed using a 4-point rating scale addressing two aspects of the occlusal appliances: occlusal contact and basic performance. In addition, silicone impression materials were used to assess the gap between the appliance and the maxillary arch to ensure an accurate fit. Differences were quantitatively assessed with Mann-Whitney U test and independent-sample t test. RESULTS: The occlusal contact rating of DS (15.90 ± 1.73) was significantly higher than that of CS (14.10 ± 1.10, P < .05). The basic performance rating of DS (8.70 ± 0.48) was also significantly higher than that of CS (7.20 ± 0.92. P < .05). Quantitative evaluation of fit accuracy revealed a statistically significant difference (P < .05), with DS (636.29 ± 268.51 µm) being superior to CS (704.2 ± 306.05 µm). CONCLUSION: The stabilization splints fabricated with a digital workflow showed better accuracy than the conventionally fabricated splints in terms of occlusal contact, basic performance, and fit accuracy. Because this is a pilot study, formal trials with a completely digital fabrication workflow will be conducted in the future.

Comparison of the elastic recovery and strain-in-compression of commercial and novel vinyl polysiloxane impression materials incorporating a novel crosslinking agent and a surfactant.

This study aims to formulate experimental vinylpolysiloxane (VPS) impression materials and compare their elastic recovery and strain-in-compressions with three commercial VPS materials (Aquasil, Elite, and Extrude). Five experimental materials (Exp), two hydrophobic (Exp-I and II) and three hydrophilic (Exp-III, IV and V) were developed. Exp 1 contained vinyl-terminated poly-dimethyl siloxane and a conventional cross-linking agent (poly methylhydrosiloxane), while Exp- II contained a novel cross-linking agent that is tetra-functional dimethyl-silyl-ortho-silicate (TFDMSOS). Exp III-V (hydrophilic materials) were formulated by incorporating different concentrations of non-ionic surfactant (Rhodasurf CET-2) into Exp II formulation. Measurement of elastic recovery and strain-in-compression for commercial and experimental materials were performed according to ISO4823 standard using the calibrated mechanical testing machine (Tinius Olsen). One-way analysis of variance (one-way ANOVA) and Tukey's post-hoc (HSD) test were used for statistical analysis and a p-value of ≤ 0.05 was considered significant. Exp-I has statistically similar values to commercial VPS. The Exp-II showed the highest elastic recovery, while % elastic recovery was reduced with the addition of the non-ionic surfactant (Rhodasurf CET-2). The % reduction was directly related to the concentration of Rhodasurf CET-2. In addition, Exp II had significantly higher strain-in-compression values compared to Exp-I and commercial materials. These values were further increased with the addition of a non-ionic surfactant (Rhodasurf CET-2) was added (Exp-III, IV and V).

Accuracy of tooth-implant impressions: Comparison of five different techniques.

PURPOSE: To compare the accuracy of five different tooth-implant impression techniques. MATERIALS AND METHODS: In this in vitro, experimental study, an acrylic model containing one bone-level Straumann dental implant at the site of maxillary first molar and an adjacent second premolar prepared for a porcelain fused to metal restoration was used. Impressions were made from the model using five different one-step tooth-implant impression techniques including scanning with an intraoral scanner, occlusal matrix, wax relief, closed-tray, and open-tray techniques. Each technique was repeated 15 times. The impressions were poured with dental stone, and the obtained casts were scanned by a laboratory scanner. The scan file of each technique was compared with the scan file of the original acrylic model by Geomagic Design X software. Data were analyzed by one-way analysis of variance, and Tamhane's post-hoc test (α = 0.05). RESULTS: For dental implant, intraoral scanning had the highest accuracy (0.1004 mm2 ) followed by open-tray (0.1914 mm2 ), occlusal matrix (0.2101 mm2 ), closed-tray (0.2422 mm2 ), and wax relief (0.2585 mm2 ) techniques (p < 0.05). For the prepared tooth, wax relief (0.0988 mm2 ) had the highest accuracy followed by occlusal matrix (0.1211 mm2 ), open-tray (0.1663 mm2 ), closed-tray (0.1737 mm2 ), and intraoral scanning (0.4903 mm2 ) technique (p < 0.05). For both dental implant and prepared tooth, occlusal matrix (0.2431 mm2 ) had the highest accuracy followed by open-tray (0.2574 mm2 ), wax relief (0.2693 mm2 ), closed-tray (0.2862 mm2 ), and intraoral scanning (0.3192 mm2 ) technique (p > 0.05). CONCLUSION: The compared simultaneous tooth-implant impression techniques had comparable accuracy with no significant difference.

Direct Comparison Between Intraoral Scanning and Alginate Impressions for Pediatric Patients: An In Vitro Study.

Purpose: To compare the accuracy and efficiency of both alginate and digital impression techniques in a method representative of a clinical setting. By evaluating the difference in fabrication time and accuracy for these techniques, it can be determined if using digital scanning is a viable alternative to alginate impressions to fabricate pediatric dental appliances.
Methods: Both the alginate and digital impressions were taken from the same pediatric typodont study model. The alginate impressions were handled and poured up, per product instructions, and digital impressions were 3D printed. A digital caliper was used to measure different landmarks on both the stone models and 3D printed models, and these measurements were compared to the pediatric typodont to determine accuracy. All steps in the process, including obtaining the impression, fabrication of the model and total time, were recorded to determine the efficiency of both methods.
Results: The alginate models had a significantly higher intercanine distance than the control. Measurements of anterior-posterior (AP) left, AP right, left central, and right central were larger than the control but did not show a significant difference in measurement. The alginate group had a significantly shorter impression time. Model fabrication time between the two groups was similar.
Conclusion: Alginate impressions require less chairside time and the digital technique was shown to be accurate in all measurements. Digital scanning may be a good alternative to alginate impressions for pediatric patients.

Evaluation of the properties of a new super quick-setting (2 min) polyether impression material.

OBJECTIVES: Although a new super-quick setting polyether impression material has been commercially recently introduced, its properties have not been yet reported. Thus, it was the aim of this study to assess the dimensional stability, tear strength, and elastic recovery of the new material and to compare it with another commonly used polyether and polyvinyl siloxane. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A new super-quick set polyether, a regular set polyether and a polyvinylsiloxane (PVS) impression material have been used in the study. Dimensional changes were measured using a modified mold as per ISO 4823:2000 after 1 h and 7 days. Tear strength was evaluated by subjecting specimens to tension until failure with a crosshead speed of 250 mm/min. Elastic recovery was measured by deforming specimens using a materials testing machine to a height of 16 mm (20% strain). The change in length (ΔL) was measured afterwards and elastic recovery was calculated in percentages. RESULTS: Dimensional changes of the super quick and regular set polyether were comparable in both the vertical and horizontal dimensions after 24 h and 7 days. All the tested materials showed dimensional change values far below the maximum accepted ISO requirement (1.5%). The super quick setting polyether showed significantly improved tear strength (4.9 N/mm) in comparison to the regular set polyether (3.5 N/mm) and similar to PVS (5.2 N/mm). The elastic recovery of PVS (99.6%) was the highest among all the groups. CONCLUSIONS AND CLINICAL RELEVANCE: The newly available super-fast set polyether offers a great potential for a reduced chair side time and comfort for both, the patient and the dentist. Super quick polyether showed as well improved tear strength, which is considered one of the shortcomings of the regular set polyether. In addition, the new polyether was as accurate as the regular set polyether and with good elastic recovery.

Comparison of the accuracy between full-arch digital scans and scannable impression materials: an in vitro study.

BACKGROUND: In some clinical cases, full-arch impression could be difficult to take correctly with the digital way. Patients with high flow salivary rate or with difficulties in mouth opening can still benefit from a conventional impression with elastomer materials that can be directly or indirectly digitized. The aim of this study was to compare the accuracy and precision of two different intraoral scanners (IOSs) and an impression material with scannable properties, by means of three-dimensional analysis of a complete dental arch. METHODS: An anatomical model of complete upper arch, modified with a Scan body placed in the retroincisive area, was used. It was firstly scanned by a desktop scanner to create a digital reference model. Then, 3 groups were created, each constituted by 5 samples. In the first group, 5 impressions were taken from the same master model with the scannable PVS material (Hydrorise Implant), 5 scans were taken using Trios4 (3Shape) and other 5 scans with iTero Element 5D (iTero). STL files obtained from IOSs, and scanned impressions were three-dimensionally superimposed on the STL file of the reference model using the Scan body geometry. RESULTS: The ANOVA Test (P<0.005) did not show any statistically significant difference between the accuracy and precision values of the groups. Each group shows clinically acceptable deviations from the reference model. CONCLUSIONS: Scannable polyvinylsiloxane impression materials are equally accurate and precise as the two IOSs tested in full-arch dentate impressions.

Number of occlusal contacts during maximum intercuspation in dentate adults: A systematised review.

BACKGROUND: Evaluating occlusal contacts during maximum intercuspation is one of the requirements for guiding clinicians during occlusal corrections and has been a topic of considerable importance for researchers over many decades. OBJECTIVE: This systematised review intends to evaluate the average number of occlusal contacts present in dentate adults, as documented within the dental literature over the past four decades (1980s-2022). METHODOLOGY: Electronic searches were conducted in three databases (PubMed, Livivo and Ovid) using a combination of search words. RESULTS: A total of 651 records were identified through PubMed and another 37 records through Livivo and Ovid databases. After eliminating duplicates and irrelevant records, 168 records were screened. Full texts of 61 articles remained, out of which 18 relevant papers that presented occlusal contacts in quantifiable value were considered. Various occlusal indicators, such as articulating paper, wax sheets, shimstock foil, impression material, gnathodynamometers and digital occlusal analysis systems, were used to evaluate occlusal contacts. The number of occlusal contacts widely ranged from 11 to 70. These variations likely depends upon the type and technique of occlusal indicator used, diversity among sampled populations and differing data collection procedures. CONCLUSION: Different methods of identifying occlusal contacts in the intercuspal position yield different numbers and patterns of contacts, depending on the nature and physical properties of the indicators used.