Franco Eduardo Batista, da Cunha Leonardo Fernandes, Herrera Francyle Simões, Benetti Ana Raquel
Department of Operative Dentistry, Endodontics, and Dental Materials, Bauru School of Dentistry, University of São Paulo, Al. Octávio Pinheiro Brisolla, 9-75 Vila Universitária, 17012-901 Bauru, SP, Brazil.
ISRN Dent. 2011;2011:341546. doi: 10.5402/2011/341546. Epub 2011 Jul 25.
Objective. To investigate the accuracy of dies obtained from single-step and 2-step double-mix impressions. Material and Methods. Impressions (n = 10) of a stainless steel die simulating a complete crown preparation were performed using a polyether (Impregum Soft Heavy and Light body) and a vinyl polysiloxane (Perfectim Blue Velvet and Flexi-Velvet) in two consistencies, in one or two (without relief) steps. Accuracy of the stone dies was accessed at a measuring microscope, using a metallic crown with perfect fit to the reference crown preparation. Data were submitted to 2-way ANOVA and Tukey test (α = 0.05). Results. The single-step technique resulted in slightly larger dies, while the 2-step technique without relief produced significantly smaller dies, when compared to the original stainless steel die. Stone dies obtained from 2-step polyether impressions were significantly smaller when compared to dies obtained from 2-step vinyl polysiloxane impressions (Impregum 2-step: -290.94 ± 71.64 μm; Perfectim 2-step: -201.86 ± 28.58 μm). No significant differences were observed in dies obtained from either polyether or vinyl polysiloxane with the single-step technique (Impregum single-step: 63.52 ± 16.60 μm; Perfectim single-step: 79.40 ± 14.11 μm). Conclusion. Higher discrepancies were detected for the 2-step impression technique without relief for the investigated materials.
目的。研究通过单步和两步双混印模获得的铸模的准确性。材料与方法。使用聚醚(Impregum Soft Heavy和Light body)和乙烯基聚硅氧烷(Perfectim Blue Velvet和Flexi-Velvet)两种稠度,以一步或两步(无缓冲)的方式对模拟全冠预备的不锈钢铸模进行印模(n = 10)。在测量显微镜下,使用与参考冠预备完美贴合的金属冠来评估石膏铸模的准确性。数据进行双向方差分析和Tukey检验(α = 0.05)。结果。与原始不锈钢铸模相比,单步技术产生的铸模稍大,而无缓冲的两步技术产生的铸模明显更小。与通过两步乙烯基聚硅氧烷印模获得的铸模相比,通过两步聚醚印模获得的石膏铸模明显更小(Impregum两步法:-290.94 ± 71.64 μm;Perfectim两步法:-201.86 ± 28.58 μm)。对于单步技术,在通过聚醚或乙烯基聚硅氧烷获得的铸模中未观察到显著差异(Impregum单步法:63.52 ± 16.60 μm;Perfectim单步法:79.40 ± 14.11 μm)。结论。对于所研究的材料,无缓冲的两步印模技术检测到的差异更大。