Bud Eugen S, Bocanet Vlad I, Muntean Mircea H, Vlasa Alexandru, Păcurar Mariana, Zetu Irina Nicoleta, Soporan Bianca I, Bud Anamaria
Faculty of Dental Medicine, University of Medicine and Pharmacy, Science and Technology George Emil Palade, 540139 Târgu-Mureș, Romania.
Department of Industrial Engineering, Faculty of Industrial Engineering, Robotics and Production Management, Technical University of Cluj-Napoca, 400144 Cluj-Napoca, Romania.
Polymers (Basel). 2022 Sep 5;14(17):3678. doi: 10.3390/polym14173678.
Impression materials are used to record and reproduce the exact morphology of the patient's oral cavity. The dimensional stability of a material is its ability to maintain the accuracy of recording the details of the oral cavity for a longer period of time, including the time during imprinting and immediately after. The aim of this study was to evaluate the accuracy of three different impression materials commonly used in the dental practice with the aid of an extra-oral three-dimensional (3D) scanner using an in vitro analysis. A typodont tooth model of the maxillary dental arch and mandibular dental arch, containing 16 permanent teeth, was used for evaluation. With the aid of three different impression materials, this model was imprinted fifteen times, resulting in fifteen different plaster models. A capsule extra-oral scanner device was used to digitalize the models and the same device was later used to align, compare, and measure scanned model surfaces. After performing the Kruskal-Wallis test for each measurement category (model), only two out of the fifteen measurements showed statistically significant differences between the material groups: vestibular-oral and mesial-distal width. Post hoc analysis showed that the alginate model (mean range = 29.13) had significantly higher bias scores than the addition silicone model (mean range = 16.75) (z = 2.501, = 0.037). The difference between the average values of the model bias made from condensation-based silicone and addition-based silicone was initially significant, but after applying the Bonferroni correction for further comparisons, this relationship did not remain significant (z = 2.197, = 0.084). Addition-based silicone models had the highest accuracy in terms of fidelity, followed by condensation-based silicones, and then by alginate models. Silicone-based impression materials improved over time, being highly used in all areas of dentistry. Alginate impressions had the lowest pattern of accuracy among those studied.
印模材料用于记录和再现患者口腔的精确形态。材料的尺寸稳定性是指其在较长时间内保持记录口腔细节准确性的能力,包括取印模期间和之后立即的这段时间。本研究的目的是借助体外分析,使用口外三维(3D)扫描仪评估牙科实践中常用的三种不同印模材料的准确性。使用包含16颗恒牙的上颌牙弓和下颌牙弓的典型牙模型进行评估。借助三种不同的印模材料,对该模型进行了15次取模,得到了15个不同的石膏模型。使用胶囊式口外扫描仪设备对模型进行数字化处理,随后使用同一设备对扫描的模型表面进行对齐、比较和测量。对每个测量类别(模型)进行Kruskal-Wallis检验后,15次测量中只有两次显示材料组之间存在统计学上的显著差异:前庭-口腔和近中-远中宽度。事后分析表明,藻酸盐模型(平均范围 = 29.13)的偏差分数显著高于加成型硅橡胶模型(平均范围 = 16.75)(z = 2.501,P = 0.037)。基于缩合型硅橡胶和加成型硅橡胶制作的模型偏差平均值之间的差异最初是显著的,但在应用Bonferroni校正进行进一步比较后,这种关系不再显著(z = 2.197,P = 0.084)。就逼真度而言,加成型硅橡胶模型的准确性最高,其次是缩合型硅橡胶,然后是藻酸盐模型。随着时间的推移,硅橡胶基印模材料有所改进,在牙科的所有领域都有广泛应用。在所研究的材料中,藻酸盐印模的准确性模式最低。