Perfect digital impression of natural abutment teeth without using retraction cords.

Digital technologies are gradually gaining ground in dentistry. In particular, taking impressions with intraoral scanners is becoming routine; however, even this must often be preceded by the use of retraction cords. This article presents an innovative technique to record digital impressions of natural tooth abutments using interim restorations relined with impression material instead of retraction cords. In the laboratory, using computer-aided design, the technician can segment the internal surface of the interim restoration and use it to replace the abutment of the intraoral scan, thus obtaining an accurate coping that yields more detailed information about the supragingival and intrasulcular surface of the preparation.

Positional accuracy of a single implant analog in additively manufactured casts in biobased model resin.

OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the positional accuracy of implant analogs in biobased model resin by comparing them to that of implant analogs in model resin casts and conventional analogs in dental stone casts. METHODS: Polyvinylsiloxane impressions of a partially edentulous mandibular model with a single implant were made and poured in type IV dental stone. The same model was also digitized with an intraoral scanner and additively manufactured implant casts were fabricated in biobased model resin (FotoDent biobased model) and model resin (FotoDent model 2 beige-opaque) (n = 8). All casts and the model were digitized with a laboratory scanner, and the scan files were imported into a 3-dimensional analysis software (Geomagic Control X). The linear deviations of 2 standardized points on the scan body used during digitization were automatically calculated on x-, y-, and z-axes. Average deviations were used to define precision, and 1-way analysis of variance and Tukey HSD tests were used for statistical analyses (α = 0.05). RESULTS: Biobased model resin led to higher deviations than dental stone (all axes, P ≤ 0.031) and model resin (y-axis, P = 0.015). Biobased model resin resulted in the lowest precision of implant analog position (P ≤ 0.049). The difference in the positional accuracy of implant analogs of model resin and stone casts was nonsignificant (P ≥ 0.196). CONCLUSIONS: Implant analogs in biobased model resin casts mostly had lower positional accuracy, whereas those in model resin and stone casts had similar positional accuracy. Regardless of the material, analogs deviated more towards mesial, while buccal deviations in additively manufactured casts and lingual deviations in stone casts were more prominent.

Effect of different impression coping and scan body designs on the accuracy of conventional versus digital implant impressions: An in vitro study.

OBJECTIVES: This in vitro study compared the accuracy of conventional versus digital impression techniques for angulated and straight implants using two different impression coping and scan body designs. METHODS: Two implant systems were used: Straumann and Dentegris. Two implants were placed for each system, straight and angulated at 15 degrees mesiodistally. Conventional impressions were made using the splinted open-tray technique using narrow impression coping (NIC) and wide impression coping (WIC). The stone casts produced from the conventional impression were digitized with a lab scanner (3Shape D2000). Digital impressions were made using four intraoral scanners (IOS): 3Shape Trios 3, Medit i700, Cerec Omnicam, and Emerald Planmeca using short scanbodies (SSB) and long scanbodies (LSB). The scanning was repeated ten times to generate the Standard Tessellation Language (STL) files. The distance and angle deviations between impression copings and scanbodies were measured in reference to the master model. RESULTS: The trueness and precision of SSB and WIC were significantly better than LSB and NIC (p<0.001). The range trueness of the platform deviation was better with SSB (37.1 to 51.9) than LSB (89.6 to 127.9 µm) and for WIC than NIC in conventional impressions (58.2 and 75.1 µm, respectively). The trueness of the angle deviation of digital scans with SSB (0.11 to 0.25 degrees) was significantly better than scans with LSB (0.31 to 0.57 degrees) and for WIC than NIC (0.21 and 0.52 degrees, respectively). The precision of the platform deviation of digital scans with SSB (12.4 to 34.5 µm) was higher than other scans and conventional impressions (42.9 to 71.4 µm). The precision of the angle deviation of Medit i700 and Trios 3 with SSB (0.17 and 0.20 degrees, respectively) was higher than other scans with SSB and conventional impressions (0.54 to 1.63 degrees). CONCLUSIONS: Digital scans with SSB were more accurate than conventional splinted open-tray impressions. The type of impression coping and scanbody significantly affected the impression accuracy. CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE: The use of a short scanbody can increase the accuracy of digital impressions, and wide impression coping can increase the accuracy of conventional impressions, resulting in improved clinical outcomes.

Trueness of maxillomandibular relationship in 3D-printed and conventional casts.

OBJECTIVES: To compare the trueness of maxillomandibular relationship between articulated 3D-printed and conventional diagnostic casts in maximum intercuspation (MIP). METHODS: Reference casts were articulated in MIP, and scanned using a Coordinate Measurement Machine (CMM, n = 1). Digital scans were made from the reference casts by using an intraoral scanner (IOS, n = 10) (Trios 4; 3Shape A/S). IOS scans were processed to create 3D-printed casts by using MAX UV385 (Asiga) and NextDent 5100 (3DSystems) 3D-printers. The conventional workflow implemented vinylpolysiloxane (VPS) impressions and Type IV stone. Stone and 3D-printed casts were articulated and digitized with a laboratory scanner (E4; 3Shape A/S). The 3D-printed casts were scanned on two occasions: with and without positioning pins. Inter-arch distances and 3D-contact area were measured and compared. Statistical tests used were Shapiro-Wilk, Levene's, Welch's t-test, and 2-way ANOVA (α=0.05). RESULTS: IOS group showed similar or better maxillomandibular relationship trueness than stone casts and 3D-printed casts (p < 0.05). 3D-contact area analysis showed similar deviations between 3D-printed and stone casts (p > 0.05). The choice of 3D-printer and presence of positioning pins on the casts significantly influenced maxillomandibular relationship trueness (p < 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: Articulated 3D-printed and stone casts exhibited similar maxillomandibular relationship trueness. CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE: Although 3D-printing methods can introduce a considerable amount of deviations, the maxillomandibular relationship trueness of articulated 3D-printed and stone casts in MIP can be considered similar.

Assessment of dimensional stability of novel VPES impression material at different time intervals with standard disinfectants.

BACKGROUND: Vinyl polyether silicone (VPES) is a novel impression biomaterial made of a combination of vinyl polysiloxane (VPS) and polyether (PE). Thus, it is significant to assess its properties and behaviour under varied disinfectant test conditions. This study aimed to assess the dimensional stability of novel VPES impression material after immersion in standard disinfectants for different time intervals. METHODS: Elastomeric impression material used -medium body regular set (Monophase) [Exa'lence GC America]. A total of 84 Specimens were fabricated using stainless steel die and ring (ADA specification 19). These samples were distributed into a control group (n=12) and a test group (n=72). The test group was divided into 3 groups, based on the type of disinfectant used - Group-A- 2% Glutaraldehyde, Group-B- 0. 5% Sodium hypochlorite and Group-C- 2% Chlorhexidine each test group was further divided into 2 subgroups (n=12/subgroup) based on time intervals for which each sample was immersed in the disinfectants - subgroup-1- 10 mins and Subgroup 2- 30 mins. After the impression material was set, it was removed from the ring and then it was washed in water for 15 seconds. Control group measurements were made immediately on a stereomicroscope and other samples were immersed in the three disinfection solutions for 10 mins and 30 mins to check the dimensional stability by measuring the distance between the lines generated by the stainless steel die on the samples using a stereomicroscope at x40 magnification. RESULTS: The distance measured in the control group was 4397.2078 µm and 4396.1571 µm; for the test group Group-A- 2% Glutaraldehyde was 4396.4075 µm and 4394.5992 µm; Group-B- 0. 5% Sodium hypochlorite was 4394.5453 µm and 4389.4711 µm Group-C- 2% Chlorhexidine was 4395.2953 µm and 4387.1703 µm respectively for 10 mins and 30 mins. Percentage dimensional change was in the range of 0.02 - 0.25 for all the groups for 10 mins and 30 mins. CONCLUSIONS: 2 % Glutaraldehyde is the most suitable disinfectant for VPES elastomeric impression material in terms of dimensional stability and shows minimum dimensional changes as compared to that of 2% Chlorhexidine and 0.5% Sodium hypochlorite.

Digital Evaluation of Trueness and Precision of Modern Impression Materials in Implant- Retained Mandibular Overdentures.

INTRODUCTION: The purpose of this in vitro study was to evaluate the dimensional accuracy, trueness, and precision of vinyl siloxane ether (VSXE) and polyvinylsiloxane (PVS) impression materials using different impression techniques. MATERIAL AND METHODS: A three-dimensional (3D) printed mandibular model with implants and metal rods served as the reference model. Impressions were taken in custom trays, resulting in four groups: PVS-closed-tray, VSXE-closed-tray, PVS-open-tray, and VSXE-open-tray. The reference model and impressions were scanned and analyzed using 3D analysis software to assess the trueness and precision within each group. RESULTS: There was significant difference in trueness between the groups, with PVS closed tray showing a higher deviation than VSXE-closed-tray and PVS-open-tray. VSXE-open-tray had the lowest deviation, which was statistically significant. In terms of precision, PVS-closed-tray showed the highest deviation, while no significant differences were found among the other groups. CONCLUSIONS: VSXE impression material with an open tray technique consistently demonstrated the highest levels of accuracy and precision. Conversely, PVS impression material with a closed tray technique yielded less favorable results. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: Better understanding of trueness and precision of new impression materials with new impression techniques will increase their clinical effectiveness.

Evaluation of Implant Impression Accuracy Using Different Trays and Techniques with a 3D Superimposition Method.

PURPOSE: To evaluate the dimensional accuracy of implant impressions obtained using five different tray types and two techniques. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A partially dentate maxillary Kennedy Class II model was created as a reference model through 3D printing. Then, implant analogs 4.3 mm in diameter were placed at the first premolar, first molar, and second molar sites. Five types of trays were used to create impressions: (1) metal stock trays, (2) plastic stock trays, (3) custom trays fabricated using liquid crystal display (LCD), (4) custom trays fabricated using fused deposition modeling (FDM), and (5) custom trays fabricated using urethane dimethacrylate (UDMA) resin. Open and closed tray techniques were also compared. In total, 150 impressions were obtained. The reference model and impressions were scanned using a laboratory scanner. Additionally, the positional and angular deviations of implants with different tray types and techniques were evaluated using the superimposition method. RESULTS: There was no statistically significant difference (P > .05) between the impression accuracy with the different tray types and impression techniques. The angular deviations with plastic and UDMA trays were greater than those with metal, FDM, and LCD trays. Angular deviation at the second molar was greater when using closed plastic trays compared to open plastic trays. The highest and lowest positional deviations were observed at the first molar implant with an open plastic tray impression (mean ± SD of 62.46 ± 28.54 mm) and a closed LCD tray impression (36.59 ± 29.93 mm). The greatest angular deviation was observed with an open FDM tray impression at the first premolar implant (0.067 ± 0.024 degree), and the lowest angular deviation was observed with a closed metal stock tray impression at the second molar implant (0.039 ± 0.025 degree). Statistical differences were detected using the Mann-Whitney U test for paired groups and the Kruskal-Wallis test for groups with more than three comparisons (P > .05). CONCLUSIONS: Plastic and metal stock trays or conventional and 3D-printed custom trays can be used to obtain implant impressions for maxillary partially edentulous arches with similar dimensional accuracy. The five tray types and two techniques may be safely used to obtain impressions of partially edentulous maxillary arches with three implants.

Evaluating the influence of palate scanning on the accuracy of complete-arch digital impressions-An in vitro study.

OBJECTIVES: To assess the impact of including the palate and the number of images recorded during intraoral digital scanning procedure on the accuracy of complete arch scans. METHODS: An experienced operator conducted 40 digital scans of a 3D printed maxillary model and divided them into two groups: 20 with inclusion of the palate (PAL) and 20 without (NPAL). Each set of scans was performed using an intraoral scanner (IOS) (Trios 5; 3Shape A/S; Copenhagen, Denmark). The resulting STL files were imported into the Geomagic Control X software (3D Systems, Rock Hill, SC, USA) for accuracy comparison. A reference STL file was created using a 3Shape E3 laboratory scanner (3Shape Scanlt Dental 2.2.1.0; Copenhagen, Denmark). The number of images captured was recorded during the scanning procedure. RESULTS: In the case of the right side no statistically significant difference in trueness was detected (84 µm ± 45.6 for PAL and 80.4 ± 40.4 µm for NPAL). In the case of the left side no significant difference in trueness was observed (215.1 ± 70.2 µm for PAL and 233.9 ± 70.7 µm for NPAL). In the case of the arch distortion a statistically significant difference in trueness was seen between the two types of scans (135.3 ± 71.9 µm for PAL and 380.4 ± 255.1 µm for NPAL). The average number of images was 831.25, and 593.8 for PAL and NPAL, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Scanning of the palatal area can significantly improve the accuracy of dental scans in cases of complete arches. In terms of the number of images, based on the current results, obvious conclusions could not be drawn, and further investigation is required. CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE: Scanning the palate may be beneficial for improving the accuracy of intraoral scans in dentate patients. Consequently, this should be linked to an appropriate scanning strategy that predicts palatal scanning.

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.

A comparative in vitro analysis of various temporization materials with respect to pulp chamber temperature changes during polymerization.

AIM: (1) To compare the temperature rise in the pulp chamber with different resin materials used for making provisional fixed partial dentures in anterior and posterior region while using Polyvinylsiloxane impression materials as matrix. (2) To identify a superior provisionalization material based on the amount of heat dissipated suitable for anterior and posterior provisional fixed partial denture fabrication. SETTINGS AND DESIGN: Temporary crowns and bridges are integral to Fixed Prosthodontics. It has been observed that conventional fixed prosthesis temporisation materials release heat due to the exothermic polymerisation reaction. When such a provisional material is directly let to set on a vital tooth, the heat transfer causes irreversible changes in the pulp tissue depending of the degree of change. Hence, this study observes amount of heat generation in various materials during temporisation procedure, by simulating similar conditions. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Two Models were fabricated, one simulating missing lateral incisor (Model A) and another simulating missing first molar (Model B). Intact maxillary central incisors and canine for Model A and intact mandibular Second Premolar and Second Molar were selected to act as abutments. These abutment teeth were fitted with the tip of a K-type Thermocouple inside their pulp chambers and these were connected to a digital thermometer. Five temporisation materials were chosen for fabrication of temporary crowns through Direct technique. (1) polymethy methacrylate (Self Cure acrylic), (2) bisacryl composite (Protemp 4), (3) visible light cure urethane dimethacrylate (Revotec LC), (4) barium glass and fumed silica infused methacrylate (Dentsply Integrity) and (5)nano-hybrid composite (VOCO Structur 3). Ten observations were made for each provisional material on each model. During each observation, temperature rise was recorded at 30s interval from the time of application, through the peak and till a decrease in temperature is observed. Polyvinyl siloxane was used as matrix for all except light cure resin, where polypropylene sheet was used. STATISTICAL ANALYSIS USED: Anova test used for statistical. RESULTS: ANOVA test revealed that there was a significant difference in the temperature changes associated with the provisional restorative materials used. Among the five, polymethy methacrylate (self cure resin) showed the maximum rise in temperature, followed by bisacryl composite (Protemp 4), visible light cure urethane dimethacrylate (Revotec LC), barium glass and fumed silica infused methacrylate (Dentsply Integrity) and nano-hybrid composite (VOCO Structur 3). There was no comparable difference between Model A and B but an overall reduction of temperature rise was observed in model B. CONCLUSION: VOCO Structur 3 showed the least temperature rise in the pulp chamber, and overall temperature rise was less for model B which can be attributed to the residual dentin thickness.

In vitro comparison of accuracy between conventional and digital impression using elastomeric materials and two intra-oral scanning devices.

AIM: The aim of this study was to compare the accuracy of full-arch conventional implant impressions using two different materials (A-silicone and polyether) to full-arch digital implant impressions produced from two intraoral scanning devices. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A master model was fabricated representing an edentulous mandible with four implants with internal connection placed at the sites of canines and first molars. The anterior implants were parallel to the residual ridge, while the two posterior implants had an angulation of 15° to the distal and 15° to the lingual respectively. The conventional technique was performed with open-tray of non-splinted impression copings. Two different impression materials were used, A-silicone and polyether at monophase medium body consistencies. The digital impressions were obtained with the use of two different intraoral scanners, after the connection of scan bodies. A total of 10 impressions were produced for each of the four experimental groups. The conventional models as well as the master model were digitized using a high-resolution laboratory scanner. The STL files of the models and of the intraoral impressions were imported in a powerful superimposition software, for the conduction of measurements in pairs of files. The software calculated the 3D deviations, as well as the linear and angular displacements among scan bodies at the digital files. For "trueness" measurements every STL file of each experimental group was superimposed to the digital master model, while for "precision" measurements all STL files of each experimental group were superimposed to each other. RESULTS AND CONCLUSIONS: The accuracy of full arch mandibular implant impressions was influenced both by the impression technique used (conventional vs. digital) and the impression material used (A-silicone vs. polyether) or the intraoral scanner used (Trios vs. Heron). In terms of "trueness," A-silicone showed the highest impression accuracy with the lowest deviation values, followed by polyether and Trios, but the differences between the three groups were in the majority not statistically significant. Heron showed statistically lower accuracy results in all measurements compared to the other groups. In terms of "precision", conventional impressions with the use of A-Silicone or polyether were statistically significantly superior to digital impressions with either scanner. A-Silicone and polyether showed no statistically significant difference between them.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Effect of Tooth Mobility on the Accuracy of Conventional Impressions: A Pilot Study.

PURPOSE: To study the influence of tooth mobility on the accuracy of conventional impressions. MATERIALS AND METHODS: In total, 10 patients with mobile anterior teeth and 10 healthy patients were treated with conventional impressions and intraoral digital impressions. The digital impression group was recorded as standard data, the mobile teeth group was recorded as the experimental group, and the healthy anterior teeth group was recorded as the control group. We imported digital impression and irreversible hydrocolloid impression files into Geomagic Wrap and marked reference points to execute N-point alignment, then we recorded the coordinates. Paired-samples t test was used to analyze whether the point coordinates of mobile teeth were statistically significant (a = .05). One-way ANOVA was used to analyze whether there was a relationship between coordinate differences and tooth mobility in the distal, coronal, and buccal directions (a = .05). RESULTS: In the buccal and coronal directions, the difference was statistically significant between the conventional and digital impression groups. In the buccal direction, the accuracy differences of I-degree and II-degree mobile teeth were 0.149 mm and 0.401 mm, respectively. In the coronal direction, the differences were 0.128 mm and 0.233 mm, respectively. Meanwhile, ANOVA analysis showed that there was a relationship between point coordinate difference and tooth mobility in the buccal and coronal directions. CONCLUSIONS: Conventional impressions can influence the accuracy of mobile tooth impressions. Therefore, digital impressions should be adopted for mobile teeth impressions.

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.

Accuracy of impression methods through the comparison of 3D deviation between implant fixtures.

AIM: To compare the accuracy of three impression methods by comparing the distance between the reference points of the implant fixture, especially in curved maxillary anterior teeth. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Implant fixtures were placed in the maxillary central incisor and canine regions. A maxillary master cast was made using a model scanner and 3D printer. Ten impressions were taken from the three experimental groups constructed (group P: pick-up impression coping; group I: scan body with an intraoral scanner; group B: bite impression coping). The distance between the reference points, the angle between the scan bodies, and displacement of the 3D surface area were measured. RESULTS: The distances between the reference points were significantly different between groups I and B in the maxillary incisors, and between group P and the other two groups in the maxillary canines. Group P had the least amount of displacement in both fixtures. Both fixtures showed the highest displacement in group B. Displacement of the 3D surface area in the maxillary incisors showed no significant difference between the groups. There was a significant difference in the maxillary canines between groups P and I. CONCLUSIONS: In the present study, all three implant impression methods showed changes in the position and angle of the fixture compared with the master cast. The highest accuracy was shown by the impression method using the pick-up impression coping, but the impression method using the intraoral scanner also showed clinically acceptable accuracy. It should be noted that errors may occur when taking impressions using a bite impression coping.