Abstract
OBJECTIVES
Despite the complexity of the edentulous anatomy, little evidence exists as to what impression techniques and materials should be employed for an optimal result. The aim of this in silico study was to evaluate the trueness of peripheral and inner seals of different edentulous jaw impressions.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
Twelve maxillary edentulous participants (male = 8, female = 4; age 68.5 ± 11.7 years) participated in this study. Four different impression materials and techniques, irreversible hydrocolloid (Alginate; Blueprint X-Crème, Dentsply Sirona, PA, USA), polyvinyl siloxane impression (PVS; Aquasil Ultra+ Medium, Dentsply Sirona, PA, USA), and subsequently modified with ZnOE (PVSM) and an optical impression (Optical; 3Shape A/S, Copenhagen, Denmark), were tested against a control impression: low-fusing impression compound border molding (Kerr Corp., CA, USA) followed by a ZnOE impression (ZnOE; SS White impression paste, S.S. White Group, Gloucester, England). All impressions were scanned and analyzed using a custom-built 3D comparison software analyzing the vertical and horizontal trueness.
RESULTS
The vertical discrepancy (peripheral seal) of the impression surface was significantly more true for PVSM than Alginate (p = 0.001), PVS (p = 0.019), and Optical groups (p < 0.001). Where the horizontal discrepancy (inner seal) was compared, the impression surface was more true for PVSM than Alginate (p < 0.001) and Optical (p < 0.001). PVS group was also significantly more true than Optical (p = 0.015).
CONCLUSION
Impression techniques and materials may significantly influence the peripheral and inner seal of an edentulous jaw impression.
CLINICAL RELEVANCE
When using a polyvinylsiloxane impression material for master edentulous impressions, a selective inner seal reline with a conventional zinc oxide eugenol impression paste can improve the inner seal.
Kalberer, Nicole