Department of Medical, Oral and Biotechnological Sciences, Dental School, 'G. D'Annunzio' University of Chieti-Pescara, Chieti, Italy.
Department of Life, Health and Environmental Sciences, University of L'Aquila, L'Aquila, Italy.
J Biol Regul Homeost Agents. 2021 Jan-Feb;35(1):161-169. doi: 10.23812/20-561-A.
For dental impression of a prepared tooth, the goal is a void-free negative representation from which an accurate cast of a tooth and its surrounding tissue can be reproduced. This in-vitro study assessed and compared the reproduction accuracies of surface detail obtained with three different dental elastomeric impression materials: vinyl polysiloxane (VPS), vinyl polyether silicone (VPES), and polyether (PE). A stainless-steel model with two abutments was used, with impressions taken 10 times for each material, for 20 abutment impressions per group, using a two-phase, one-step technique (heavy body/light body). The impressions were removed and assessed for numbers of enclosed voids and open voids visible on the surface. The defect frequency was 95% for impressions with the VPS and VPES materials, and 30% for the PE material. No significant differences were seen for number of impressions with defects for VPS versus VPES. Significant differences were seen for VPS and VPES versus the PE material (P <.05). No significant differences were seen for the defect type distributions across these three impression materials. The PE impression material showed better accuracy for reproduction of surface detail of these dental impressions compared to the VPS and VPES impression materials.
对于预备牙的口腔印模，目标是获得无空隙的阴性印模，以便能够准确复制牙齿及其周围组织的模型。本体外研究评估并比较了三种不同的牙科弹性体印模材料（乙烯基聚硅氧烷[VPS]、乙烯基聚醚硅氧烷[VPES]和聚醚[PE]）获得的表面细节的再现准确性。使用带有两个基牙的不锈钢模型，每种材料取印模 10 次，每组 20 个基牙印模，采用两相一步法（重体/轻体）。取出印模并评估表面可见的封闭空隙和开放空隙的数量。VPS 和 VPES 材料的印模缺陷频率为 95%，PE 材料的缺陷频率为 30%。VPS 与 VPES 之间的缺陷印模数量无显著差异。VPS 和 VPES 与 PE 材料之间存在显著差异（P<.05）。这三种印模材料的缺陷类型分布无显著差异。与 VPS 和 VPES 印模材料相比，PE 印模材料在复制这些口腔印模的表面细节方面具有更好的准确性。
