• 主题
高级搜索  >
历史搜索 清空历史
首页> 外文期刊>The Journal of Advanced Prosthodontics >Accuracy of a separating foil impression using a novel polyolefin foil compared to a custom tray and a stock tray technique
【24h】

Accuracy of a separating foil impression using a novel polyolefin foil compared to a custom tray and a stock tray technique

机译：与定制托盘和储备托盘技术相比，使用新型聚烯烃箔的分离箔压印精度

获取原文
           
页面导航
  • 摘要
  • 著录项
  • 相似文献
  • 相关主题

摘要

PURPOSE To compare the dimensional accuracy of three impression techniques- a separating foil impression, a custom tray impression, and a stock tray impression. MATERIALS AND METHODS A machined mandibular complete-arch metal model with special modifications served as a master cast. Three different impression techniques (n = 6 in each group) were performed with addition-cured silicon materials: i) putty-wash technique with a prefabricated metal tray (MET) using putty and regular body, ii) single-phase impression with custom tray (CUS) using regular body material, and iii) two-stage technique with stock metal tray (SEP) using putty with a separating foil and regular body material. All impressions were poured with epoxy resin. Six different distances (four intra-abutment and two inter-abutment distances) were gauged on the metal master model and on the casts with a microscope in combination with calibrated measuring software. The differences of the evaluated distances between the reference and the three test groups were calculated and expressed as mean (± SD). Additionally, the 95% confidence intervals were calculated and significant differences between the experimental groups were assumed when confidence intervals did not overlap. RESULTS Dimensional changes compared to reference values varied between -74.01 and 32.57 μm (MET), -78.86 and 30.84 (CUS), and between -92.20 and 30.98 (SEP). For the intra-abutment distances, no significant differences among the experimental groups were detected. CUS showed a significantly higher dimensional accuracy for the inter-abutment distances with -0.02 and -0.08 percentage deviation compared to MET and SEP. CONCLUSION The separation foil technique is a simple alternative to the custom tray technique for single tooth restorations, while limitations may exist for extended restorations with multiple abutment teeth.
机译：目的比较三种压印技术的尺寸精度-分离箔压印，自定义纸盘印模和库存纸盘印模。材料和方法经过机械加工的下颌完整牙弓金属模型经过特殊修改后用作主模型。使用加成固化的硅材料执行了三种不同的压印技术（每组n = 6）：i）使用腻子和规则主体的预制金属托盘（MET）进行油灰清洗技术，ii）使用定制托盘进行单相压印（CUS）使用常规车身材料，以及iii）两阶段技术，使用带有分隔箔和常规车身材料的腻子的金属金属托盘（SEP）。所有印模均用环氧树脂浇注。在金属主模型上和在铸件上，使用显微镜结合校准的测量软件，测量了六个不同的距离（四个基台内距离和两个基台间距离）。计算参考组与三个测试组之间评估距离的差异，并表示为平均值（±SD）。此外，计算了95％的置信区间，并且当置信区间不重叠时，假设实验组之间存在显着差异。结果与参考值相比，尺寸变化在-74.01和32.57μm（MET），-78.86和30.84（CUS）之间以及在-92.20和30.98（SEP）之间变化。对于基台内距离，实验组之间未检测到显着差异。与MET和SEP相比，CUS的基台间距离尺寸精度显着提高，偏差为-0.02和-0.08。结论对于单牙修复体，分离箔技术是常规牙托技术的一种简单替代方法，而对于具有多个基牙的扩展修复体可能存在限制。

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
获取原文

客服邮箱：kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备：11010802029741号 ICP备案号：京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有

  • 客服微信

  • 服务号