Extra-Oral Three-Dimensional (3D) Scanning Evaluation of Three Different Impression Materials—An In Vitro Study
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 i...
Gespeichert in:
Veröffentlicht in: | Polymers 2022-09, Vol.14 (17), p.3678 |
---|---|
Hauptverfasser: | , , , , , , , |
Format: | Artikel |
Sprache: | eng |
Schlagworte: | |
Online-Zugang: | Volltext |
Tags: |
Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
|
container_end_page | |
---|---|
container_issue | 17 |
container_start_page | 3678 |
container_title | Polymers |
container_volume | 14 |
creator | Bud, Eugen S. Bocanet, Vlad I. Muntean, Mircea H. Vlasa, Alexandru Păcurar, Mariana Zetu, Irina Nicoleta Soporan, Bianca I. Bud, Anamaria |
description | 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, p = 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, p = 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. |
doi_str_mv | 10.3390/polym14173678 |
format | Article |
fullrecord | <record><control><sourceid>gale_pubme</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_pubmedcentral_primary_oai_pubmedcentral_nih_gov_9459976</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><galeid>A746438837</galeid><sourcerecordid>A746438837</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c350t-3038652eae798f5a6f32805d71f09415389729d5bc971dd73199c96f1e4fd9173</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNpdkc1OGzEUha2qqCBg2b0lNnQxrT3-3yBFJC2RQCwSurXMjB2MZuxgzyCy60P0CfskOA2CUm9s3fP5-PheAD5j9JUQhb6tY7fpMcWCcCE_gIMaCVJRwtHHf8774Djne1QWZZxj8Qnsl6pEgpED8DB7GpKprpPp4PIuWVtNfW9D9jGUyimZfoGLxoTgwwrOHk03mqFIMLodDafeOZtsGOC8XyebtxfhlRls8qbLf379ngQ4D_CnH1KEi2FsN0dgzxXJHr_sh-Dm-2x5flFdXv-Yn08uq4YwNFQEEclZbY0VSjpmuCO1RKwV2CFFMSNSiVq17LZRAretIFipRnGHLXWtKh05BGc73_V429u2KRnLJ_U6-d6kjY7G6_dK8Hd6FR-1okwpwYvB6YtBig-jzYPufW5s15lg45h1LXAtGUE1K-jJf-h9HFPp4F8KU86VkG_UynRW--BiebfZmuqJoJwSKck2d7WjmhRzTta9RsZIb6eu302dPAO_-543</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Open Access Repository</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>2711466978</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Extra-Oral Three-Dimensional (3D) Scanning Evaluation of Three Different Impression Materials—An In Vitro Study</title><source>MDPI - Multidisciplinary Digital Publishing Institute</source><source>Elektronische Zeitschriftenbibliothek - Frei zugängliche E-Journals</source><source>PubMed Central</source><source>PubMed Central Open Access</source><creator>Bud, Eugen S. ; Bocanet, Vlad I. ; Muntean, Mircea H. ; Vlasa, Alexandru ; Păcurar, Mariana ; Zetu, Irina Nicoleta ; Soporan, Bianca I. ; Bud, Anamaria</creator><creatorcontrib>Bud, Eugen S. ; Bocanet, Vlad I. ; Muntean, Mircea H. ; Vlasa, Alexandru ; Păcurar, Mariana ; Zetu, Irina Nicoleta ; Soporan, Bianca I. ; Bud, Anamaria</creatorcontrib><description>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, p = 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, p = 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.</description><identifier>ISSN: 2073-4360</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 2073-4360</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.3390/polym14173678</identifier><identifier>PMID: 36080753</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>Basel: MDPI AG</publisher><subject>Accuracy ; Alginates ; Analysis ; Bias ; Condensates ; Dimensional stability ; Evaluation ; Expected values ; Medicine ; Polymerization ; Practice ; Scanners ; Scanning devices ; Silicones ; Software ; Viscosity</subject><ispartof>Polymers, 2022-09, Vol.14 (17), p.3678</ispartof><rights>COPYRIGHT 2022 MDPI AG</rights><rights>2022 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/). Notwithstanding the ProQuest Terms and Conditions, you may use this content in accordance with the terms of the License.</rights><rights>2022 by the authors. 2022</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><oa>free_for_read</oa><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c350t-3038652eae798f5a6f32805d71f09415389729d5bc971dd73199c96f1e4fd9173</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c350t-3038652eae798f5a6f32805d71f09415389729d5bc971dd73199c96f1e4fd9173</cites><orcidid>0000-0003-3883-0547 ; 0000-0002-7390-7362 ; 0000-0001-5193-4944</orcidid></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktopdf>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9459976/pdf/$$EPDF$$P50$$Gpubmedcentral$$Hfree_for_read</linktopdf><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9459976/$$EHTML$$P50$$Gpubmedcentral$$Hfree_for_read</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>230,314,723,776,780,881,27901,27902,53766,53768</link.rule.ids></links><search><creatorcontrib>Bud, Eugen S.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Bocanet, Vlad I.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Muntean, Mircea H.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Vlasa, Alexandru</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Păcurar, Mariana</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Zetu, Irina Nicoleta</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Soporan, Bianca I.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Bud, Anamaria</creatorcontrib><title>Extra-Oral Three-Dimensional (3D) Scanning Evaluation of Three Different Impression Materials—An In Vitro Study</title><title>Polymers</title><description>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, p = 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, p = 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.</description><subject>Accuracy</subject><subject>Alginates</subject><subject>Analysis</subject><subject>Bias</subject><subject>Condensates</subject><subject>Dimensional stability</subject><subject>Evaluation</subject><subject>Expected values</subject><subject>Medicine</subject><subject>Polymerization</subject><subject>Practice</subject><subject>Scanners</subject><subject>Scanning devices</subject><subject>Silicones</subject><subject>Software</subject><subject>Viscosity</subject><issn>2073-4360</issn><issn>2073-4360</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2022</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>BENPR</sourceid><recordid>eNpdkc1OGzEUha2qqCBg2b0lNnQxrT3-3yBFJC2RQCwSurXMjB2MZuxgzyCy60P0CfskOA2CUm9s3fP5-PheAD5j9JUQhb6tY7fpMcWCcCE_gIMaCVJRwtHHf8774Djne1QWZZxj8Qnsl6pEgpED8DB7GpKprpPp4PIuWVtNfW9D9jGUyimZfoGLxoTgwwrOHk03mqFIMLodDafeOZtsGOC8XyebtxfhlRls8qbLf379ngQ4D_CnH1KEi2FsN0dgzxXJHr_sh-Dm-2x5flFdXv-Yn08uq4YwNFQEEclZbY0VSjpmuCO1RKwV2CFFMSNSiVq17LZRAretIFipRnGHLXWtKh05BGc73_V429u2KRnLJ_U6-d6kjY7G6_dK8Hd6FR-1okwpwYvB6YtBig-jzYPufW5s15lg45h1LXAtGUE1K-jJf-h9HFPp4F8KU86VkG_UynRW--BiebfZmuqJoJwSKck2d7WjmhRzTta9RsZIb6eu302dPAO_-543</recordid><startdate>20220905</startdate><enddate>20220905</enddate><creator>Bud, Eugen S.</creator><creator>Bocanet, Vlad I.</creator><creator>Muntean, Mircea H.</creator><creator>Vlasa, Alexandru</creator><creator>Păcurar, Mariana</creator><creator>Zetu, Irina Nicoleta</creator><creator>Soporan, Bianca I.</creator><creator>Bud, Anamaria</creator><general>MDPI AG</general><general>MDPI</general><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>7SR</scope><scope>8FD</scope><scope>8FE</scope><scope>8FG</scope><scope>ABJCF</scope><scope>ABUWG</scope><scope>AFKRA</scope><scope>AZQEC</scope><scope>BENPR</scope><scope>BGLVJ</scope><scope>CCPQU</scope><scope>D1I</scope><scope>DWQXO</scope><scope>HCIFZ</scope><scope>JG9</scope><scope>KB.</scope><scope>PDBOC</scope><scope>PHGZM</scope><scope>PHGZT</scope><scope>PIMPY</scope><scope>PKEHL</scope><scope>PQEST</scope><scope>PQGLB</scope><scope>PQQKQ</scope><scope>PQUKI</scope><scope>PRINS</scope><scope>7X8</scope><scope>5PM</scope><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3883-0547</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-7390-7362</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5193-4944</orcidid></search><sort><creationdate>20220905</creationdate><title>Extra-Oral Three-Dimensional (3D) Scanning Evaluation of Three Different Impression Materials—An In Vitro Study</title><author>Bud, Eugen S. ; Bocanet, Vlad I. ; Muntean, Mircea H. ; Vlasa, Alexandru ; Păcurar, Mariana ; Zetu, Irina Nicoleta ; Soporan, Bianca I. ; Bud, Anamaria</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c350t-3038652eae798f5a6f32805d71f09415389729d5bc971dd73199c96f1e4fd9173</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2022</creationdate><topic>Accuracy</topic><topic>Alginates</topic><topic>Analysis</topic><topic>Bias</topic><topic>Condensates</topic><topic>Dimensional stability</topic><topic>Evaluation</topic><topic>Expected values</topic><topic>Medicine</topic><topic>Polymerization</topic><topic>Practice</topic><topic>Scanners</topic><topic>Scanning devices</topic><topic>Silicones</topic><topic>Software</topic><topic>Viscosity</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Bud, Eugen S.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Bocanet, Vlad I.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Muntean, Mircea H.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Vlasa, Alexandru</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Păcurar, Mariana</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Zetu, Irina Nicoleta</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Soporan, Bianca I.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Bud, Anamaria</creatorcontrib><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>Engineered Materials Abstracts</collection><collection>Technology Research Database</collection><collection>ProQuest SciTech Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Technology Collection</collection><collection>Materials Science & Engineering Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central UK/Ireland</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Essentials</collection><collection>ProQuest Central</collection><collection>Technology Collection (ProQuest)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Community College</collection><collection>ProQuest Materials Science Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Korea</collection><collection>SciTech Premium Collection</collection><collection>Materials Research Database</collection><collection>Materials Science Database</collection><collection>Materials Science Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (New)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic (New)</collection><collection>Publicly Available Content Database</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic Middle East (New)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic Eastern Edition (DO NOT USE)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Applied & Life Sciences</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic UKI Edition</collection><collection>ProQuest Central China</collection><collection>MEDLINE - Academic</collection><collection>PubMed Central (Full Participant titles)</collection><jtitle>Polymers</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Bud, Eugen S.</au><au>Bocanet, Vlad I.</au><au>Muntean, Mircea H.</au><au>Vlasa, Alexandru</au><au>Păcurar, Mariana</au><au>Zetu, Irina Nicoleta</au><au>Soporan, Bianca I.</au><au>Bud, Anamaria</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Extra-Oral Three-Dimensional (3D) Scanning Evaluation of Three Different Impression Materials—An In Vitro Study</atitle><jtitle>Polymers</jtitle><date>2022-09-05</date><risdate>2022</risdate><volume>14</volume><issue>17</issue><spage>3678</spage><pages>3678-</pages><issn>2073-4360</issn><eissn>2073-4360</eissn><abstract>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, p = 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, p = 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.</abstract><cop>Basel</cop><pub>MDPI AG</pub><pmid>36080753</pmid><doi>10.3390/polym14173678</doi><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3883-0547</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-7390-7362</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5193-4944</orcidid><oa>free_for_read</oa></addata></record> |
fulltext | fulltext |
identifier | ISSN: 2073-4360 |
ispartof | Polymers, 2022-09, Vol.14 (17), p.3678 |
issn | 2073-4360 2073-4360 |
language | eng |
recordid | cdi_pubmedcentral_primary_oai_pubmedcentral_nih_gov_9459976 |
source | MDPI - Multidisciplinary Digital Publishing Institute; Elektronische Zeitschriftenbibliothek - Frei zugängliche E-Journals; PubMed Central; PubMed Central Open Access |
subjects | Accuracy Alginates Analysis Bias Condensates Dimensional stability Evaluation Expected values Medicine Polymerization Practice Scanners Scanning devices Silicones Software Viscosity |
title | Extra-Oral Three-Dimensional (3D) Scanning Evaluation of Three Different Impression Materials—An In Vitro Study |
url | https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-02-19T00%3A37%3A33IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-gale_pubme&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Extra-Oral%20Three-Dimensional%20(3D)%20Scanning%20Evaluation%20of%20Three%20Different%20Impression%20Materials%E2%80%94An%20In%20Vitro%20Study&rft.jtitle=Polymers&rft.au=Bud,%20Eugen%20S.&rft.date=2022-09-05&rft.volume=14&rft.issue=17&rft.spage=3678&rft.pages=3678-&rft.issn=2073-4360&rft.eissn=2073-4360&rft_id=info:doi/10.3390/polym14173678&rft_dat=%3Cgale_pubme%3EA746438837%3C/gale_pubme%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=2711466978&rft_id=info:pmid/36080753&rft_galeid=A746438837&rfr_iscdi=true |