Qualitative and quantitative three-dimensional accuracy of a single tooth captured by elastomeric impression materials: An in vitro study

Statement of problem The accuracy of impressions has been described in 1 or 2 dimensions, whereas it is most desirable to evaluate the accuracy of impressions spatially, in 3 dimensions. Purpose The purpose of this study was to demonstrate the accuracy and reproducibility of a 3-dimensional (3-D) approach to assessing impression preciseness and to quantitatively comparing the occlusal correctness of gypsum dies made with different impression materials. Material and methods By using an aluminum replica of a maxillary molar, single-step dual viscosity impressions were made with 1 polyether/vinyl polysiloxane hybrid material (Identium), 1 vinyl polysiloxane (Panasil), and 1 polyether (Impregum) (n=5). Corresponding dies were made of Type IV gypsum and were optically digitized and aligned to the virtual reference of the aluminum tooth. Accuracy was analyzed by computing mean quadratic deviations between the virtual reference and the gypsum dies, while deviations of the dies among one another determined the reproducibility of the method. The virtual reference was adapted to create 15 occlusal contact points. The percentage of contact points deviating within a ±10µm tolerance limit (PDP10 = Percentage of Deviating Points within ±10µm Tolerance) was set as the index for assessing occlusal accuracy. Visual results for the difference from the reference tooth were displayed with colors, whereas mean deviation values as well as mean PDP10 differences were analyzed with a 1-way ANOVA and Scheffé post hoc comparisons (α=.05). Results Objective characterization of accuracy showed smooth axial surfaces to be undersized, whereas occlusal surfaces were accurate or enlarged when compared to the original tooth. The accuracy of the gypsum replicas ranged between 3 and 6 µm, while reproducibility results varied from 2 to 4 µm. Mean (SD) PDP10 -values were: Panasil 91% (±11), Identium 77% (±4) and Impregum 29% (±3). One-way ANOVA detected significant differences among the subjected impression materials ( P