The Journal of Contemporary Dental Practice

Register      Login

SEARCH WITHIN CONTENT

FIND ARTICLE

Volume / Issue

Online First

Archive
Related articles

VOLUME 7 , ISSUE 4 ( September, 2006 ) > List of Articles

RESEARCH ARTICLE

The Effect of Adding a Stone Base on the Accuracy of Working Casts Using Different Types of Dental Stone

Ayman Ellakwa, Khalid Al-Abidi

Citation Information : Ellakwa A, Al-Abidi K. The Effect of Adding a Stone Base on the Accuracy of Working Casts Using Different Types of Dental Stone. J Contemp Dent Pract 2006; 7 (4):17-28.

DOI: 10.5005/jcdp-7-4-17

License: CC BY-NC 3.0

Published Online: 00-09-2006

Copyright Statement:  Copyright © 2006; Jaypee Brothers Medical Publishers (P) Ltd.


Abstract

Aim

Gypsum products are used for the preparation of stone casts of oral and maxillofacial structures and as important adjuncts to dental laboratory operations involved in the production of dental prostheses. The aim of this study was to determine the effect on the dimensional accuracy of a working cast of adding a stone base using different stone products.

Methods and Materials

A total of forty impressions of a mandibular dentoform were made. The impressions were dried with compressed air and stored at room temperature for 24 hours before pouring stone casts. The forty impressions were randomly divided into four groups of ten each. All forty impressions were poured once using one pre-weighed 140 Gm package of Silky Rock (SR) Type IV improved stone (Whip Mix Corporation, Louisville, KY, USA) per impression. All working casts and the die setups were prepared according to the manufacturer's recommendations for pin placement (M.R. Dual pin and sleeve). Four different types of dental stone (II, III, and IV) and Flow Stone (FS) were used as bases for the working models. They were mixed according to the manufacturer's recommendations.

The lower posterior teeth were flattened on the dentoform prior to taking the impressions. All were indexed using a mounted abrasive disc. Four teeth were selected as follows: 21, 28, 30, and 18. These represented A, B, C, and D landmarks, respectively. All measurements (five times for each specimen) were made with a Universal measuring microscope (Unitron Instruments, Inc., Bohemia, NY, USA). After the pre-sectioned measurements were recorded, the stone base was poured. A manual hand saw was used to section and fabricate removable dies for the mandibular landmarks A, B, C, and D. The dies were later seated and removed ten times to simulate the average amount of handling during laboratory procedures. Each die was carefully seated and measurements were made using the same technique as for the master model and unsectioned casts. Multivariate repeated measures analysis of variance (MANOVA) was used to test the difference in three different landmark distances (AB, AC, and AD) among the master model before and after sectioning of the working dies and among the four different base materials. Univariate analysis of variance (ANOVA) was conducted for each measurement, AB, AC, and AD to test the difference in landmark distances on the master model at pre sectioning and then at post sectioning using four different base materials. When there was a significant main effect (p < .05), the Student-Newman-Keul's (SNK) were used to test for pair wise comparison of means (P<0.05).

Results

The results of the MANOVA indicated there was a significant difference in three landmark measurements on the master model before and after sectioning of the working dies for the four different base materials (F=6.60, p=0.0001). In addition there was a significant difference in three landmark measurements on the master model at: (1) pre sectioning (p=0.0001), (2) between the master model and SR material (p=0.0002), (3) between the master model and Laboratory Plaster (LP) material (p=0.0001), (4) between the master model and Quick Stone (QS) material (p=0.0001), and (5) between the master model and FS material (p=0.0001).

Citation

Al-Abidi K, Ellakwa A. The Effect of Adding a Stone Base on the Accuracy of Working Casts Using Different Types of Dental Stone. J Contemp Dent Pract 2006 September;(7)4:017-028.


PDF Share
  1. Phillip's science of dental material. 10th ed. Philadelphia: WB Saunders, 1996:185-208.
  2. The Science of Dental Materials. 5th ed. Philadelphia: W. B. Saunders Company, 1960:31-47.
  3. Chicago, IL.
  4. Quantitative evaluation of proximal tooth movement effected by wedging: a pilot study. J Prosthet Dent. 1985;53:335-41.
  5. Abutment teeth with extracoronal attachements: the effects of splinting on tooth movement. Int J Prosthdont. 1990;3:441-8.
  6. Precision dies from elastic impressions. J Prosthet Dent. 1962;12:737-52.
  7. Dimensional accuracy of improved dental stone and epoxy resin die materials. Part l: Single die. J Prosthet Dent. 1997;77:131-5.
  8. Dimensional accuracy of improved dental stone and epoxy resin die materials. Part ll: Complete arch form. J Prosthet Dent. 1997;77:235-8.
  9. Tolerance measurements of various implant components. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 1997;12:371-5.
  10. Measuring fit at the implant prosthodontics interface. J Prosthet Dent. 1996;75:314-25.
  11. Revised American Dental Association, Specification No. 19 for non aqueous elastomeric dental impression materials. J Am Dent Assoc. 1977;94:733.
  12. A comparison of the accuracy of two removable die system with intact working casts. Int J Prosthodont. 1993;6:533-9.
  13. An evaluation of four removable die systems. J Prosthet Dent. 1998;80:575-586.
  14. Restorative dental materials. Chapter 12. 10th ed. St. Louis: CV Mosby; 1980.p.333-46.
  15. Determining the accuracy of gypsum casts made from type IV dental stone. J Oral Rehabil. 1992;19:239-43.
  16. The dimensional accuracy of improved dental stone silver plated, and epoxy resin die materials. J Prosthet Dent. 1988;59:307-310.
  17. Materials Science in Dentistry. Maryland: Waverly Press, Inc. 1971:261-281.
  18. Dimensional accuracy of epoxy resins and their compatibility with impression materials. J Prosthet Dent. 1984;52:500-504.
  19. Dental Materials. St. Louis: CV Mosby, 1960:194-229.
  20. The use of plaster of Paris and allied substances for dental models. Br Dent J. 1927;48:1494-98.
  21. Shillingburg HT Jr. Wettability of the elastromeric impression materials: effect of selected surfactants. Int J Prosthdont. 1989;2:413-20.
  22. Wettability of the elastromeric impression materials and voids in gypsum casts. J Prosthet Dent. 1991;66:261-5.
  23. In:Craig RG (ed). Restorative Dental Materials, ed 6. St Louis: Mosby, 1980.
PDF Share

© Jaypee Brothers Medical Publishers (P) LTD.