The Journal of Contemporary Dental Practice

Register      Login

SEARCH WITHIN CONTENT

FIND ARTICLE

Volume / Issue

Online First

Archive
Related articles

VOLUME 13 , ISSUE 6 ( November-December, 2012 ) > List of Articles

RESEARCH ARTICLE

The Influence of Tray Space and Repeat Pours on the Accuracy of Monophasic Polyvinylsiloxane Impression

Anand Rajapur, Santosh Dixit, Chetan Hoshing, Sonal Raikar

Citation Information : Rajapur A, Dixit S, Hoshing C, Raikar S. The Influence of Tray Space and Repeat Pours on the Accuracy of Monophasic Polyvinylsiloxane Impression. J Contemp Dent Pract 2012; 13 (6):824-829.

DOI: 10.5005/jp-journals-10024-1236

Published Online: 01-12-2012

Copyright Statement:  Copyright © 2012; Jaypee Brothers Medical Publishers (P) Ltd.


Abstract

Aim

While literature demonstrates that the optimum accuracy is obtained with the custom trays, the use of stock trays for elastomeric impressions appears to be popular in general practice. The aim of the study was to evaluate the effect of thickness of impression material on the dimensional accuracy of impressions made from monophasic polyvinylsiloxane impression material. This study also studies the dimensional stability of the impressions poured at different time intervals.

Materials and methods

A metal model simulating two abutment teeth was fabricated along with reference lines inscribed on them. Custom impression trays were fabricated with spacer thickness of 2, 4 and 6 mm. impressions were made using monophasic polyvinyl siloxane impression material. The impressions were poured and stone models were obtained. The dimensional accuracy of the impressions were determined indirectly by measuring the dimensional changes of the recovered stone models. The dimensional stability was also evaluated by pouring the impressions at time intervals of 1 hour, 24 hours and 7 days. The obtained data was statistically analyzed.

Results

The results of the study indicated that the impressions made from 2 and 4 mm tray space produced more accurate stone models when compared to 6 mm tray space. There was no significant deviation in the mesiodistal and buccolingual dimensions when impressions were made using impression trays with 2, 4 and 6 mm tray spacers. There was a significant decrease in interabutment distance (p = 0.001) and height of the abutment (p = 0.024) when impressions were made using impression trays with a tray space of 6 mm. There were no significant differences found among the stone models obtained from 1 hour, 24 hours and 1 week pour times.

Conclusion

The mesiodistal and buccolingual dimensions of the abutments were not affected by the variations in thickness of impression material. There was a decrease in the height of the abutment which was clinically not significant. As the thickness of the impression material increased, the interabutment space decreased, which is a factor of concern when impressions are made for fixed partial dentures.

Clinical significance

When monophasic polyvinylsiloxane is used as the impression material, stock trays can be used for making impressions for individual castings.

How to cite this article

Rajapur A, Dixit S, Hoshing C, Raikar S. The Influence of Tray Space and Repeat Pours on the Accuracy of Monophasic Polyvinylsiloxane Impression. J Contemp Dent Pract 2012;13(6):824-829.


PDF Share
  1. Elastomeric impression materials: Effect of bulk on accuracy. J Prosthet Dent 1979;41:304-07.
  2. Accuracy of addition silicone as a function of technique. J Prosthet Dent 1986;55:197-203.
  3. Timedependent accuracy of elastomeric impression materials. Part II: Polyether, polysulfides and polyvinylsiloxanes. J Prosthet Dent 1981;45:329-33.
  4. Phillip's science of dental materials (11th ed). St Louis: WB Saunders 2003:214-13.
  5. St Louis: Mosby 2002:352-368.
  6. The effect of tray selection on the accuracy of elastomeric impression materials. J Prosthet Dent 1990;63:12-15.
  7. The accuracy of highly filled elastomeric impression materials. J Prost Dent 1975;33:67-72.
  8. Contemporary fixed prosthodontics (3rd ed). St Louis: Mosby 2001:363-65.
  9. Fundamentals of fixed prosthodontics (3rd ed). Quintessence Publishing Co Inc 1997;283:90.
  10. Dimensional stability of elastomeric impression materials in custom-made and stock trays. J Prosthet Dent 1984;52:514-17.
  11. Accuracy of four types of rubber impression materials compared with time of pour and a repeat pour of models. J Prosthet Dent 1985;53:484-90.
  12. The accuracy of stone dies made from rubber impression materials. J Prosthet Dent 1970;24:377-86.
  13. Liner dimensional changes in addition curing silicone impression materials. J Prosthet Dent 1982;47:411-13.
  14. A comparison of elastic impression materials. J Prosthet Dent 1975;34:305-13.
  15. Clinically oriented evaluation of the accuracy of commonly used impression materials. J Prosthet Dent 1986;56:4-8.
  16. Long-term dimensional stability of three current elastomers. J Oral Rehabil 1983;10:325-33.
  17. Laser digitization of casts to determine the effect of tray selection and cast formation technique on accuracy. J Prosthet Dent 2002;87:204-09.
  18. The effect of using custom or stock trays on the accuracy of gypsum casts. Int J Prosthodont 1996;9:367-73.
  19. Effect of tray space on the accuracy of monophasic polyvinylsiloxane impressions. J Prosthet Dent 1992;68:19-28.
  20. Dimensional accuracy of resultant casts made by a monophase, one-step and two-step, and a novel twostep putty/light-body impression technique: An in vitro study. J Prosthet Dent 2008:99(4):274-81.
  21. Dimensional accuracy of dental casts: Influence of tray material, impression material and time. J Prosthodont 2002:11(2):98-108.
  22. Effect of storage period on the accuracy of elastomeric impressions. J Appl Oral Sci 2007;15(3):195-98.
PDF Share
PDF Share

© Jaypee Brothers Medical Publishers (P) LTD.