Betül KÖKDOĞAN BOYACI, Mustafa KOCACIKLI

Elastomerik Ölçü Materyallerinde Güncel Gelişmeler

Ölçü alma, daimi modelin doğruluğunu ve yapılacak restorasyonun pasif uyumunu doğrudan etkilediği için protetik tedavi sürecinde önemli bir aşamayı oluşturur. Günümüzde sabit protetik tedavide ölçü alma işleminde elastomerik ölçü materyalleri olarak sıklıkla silikonlar C-silikon ve A-silikon ve polieterler kullanılmaktadır. Güncel olarak yeni geliştirilen vinilsiloksaneter elastomerik ölçü materyali, polieter ve polivinilsiloksan ölçü materyallerinin üstün özelliklerini bir arada bulundurmaktadır. Ancak bu ölçü maddesi ile ilgili araştırmalar halen devam etmektedir. Ölçü alma işlemi için günümüzde geleneksel ölçü tekniğinin yanı sıra bilgisayar destekli tasarım ve üretim sistemlerindeki gelişmelerle birlikte dijital ölçü tekniğinin kullanımı yaygınlaşmıştır. Ölçülerin dijital olarak alınması ve ağız içi ince detayların tarayıcı yardımıyla kaydedilebilmesine rağmen, bilgilerin hastadan laboratuvara aktarılmasında geleneksel ölçü yöntemlerinin hala önemli bir rolü vardır. Ölçü materyallerindeki ilerleme teknoloji ve materyallerin gelişmesiyle devam etmektedir. Eldeki her materyal ve teknik, hangisinin en iyi performansı sunacağını belirlemek için dikkatlice değerlendirilmelidir

Anahtar Kelimeler:

Dental ölçü materyalleri, dental ölçü teknikleri

Actual Developments in Elastomeric Impression Materials

Taking impression is an important step for accuracy of the master model and passive fit of restorations at prosthetic treatment. Nowadays; condensation silicones, addition silicones and polyethers are used for fixed prosthetic treatments. Polyvinyl siloxane impression material is a new material that has superior characteristics of both polyether and polyvinyl siloxane but researchs on this material are ongoing. Developments on computer aided design and manufacturing systems make digital impressions become prevelant besides conventional impression techniques. Although digital impressions can record intraoral details from patients, conventional impression techniques still have important roles for transferring data from patient to the laboratory. Developments on technology and materials affect impression materials and techniques in addition to this improvements are still continuing. Available materials and techniques must be evaluated carefully to determine which material have the best performance for usage

Keywords:

Dental impression materials, Dental impression techniques,

PDF

___

Stober T, Johnson GH, Schmitter M. Accuracy of the newly formulated vinyl siloxanether elastomeric impression material. J Prosthet Dent. 2010;103:228-39.
Anusavice KJ, Shen C, Rawls HR. Impression materials. Anusavice KJ, Shen C, Rawls HR, editors. Phillips’ Science of Dental Materials. 12th ed. St. Louis: Elsevier Saunders; 2013. p.151- 81.
Burgess JO, Lawson NC, Robles A. Comparing digital and conventional impressions. Assessing the accuracy, efficiency, and value of today’s systems. Inside Dentistry. 2013;9:68-74.
Lu H, Nguyen B, Powers JM. Mechanical properties of 3 hydrophilic addition silicone and polyether elastomeric impression materials. J Prosthet Dent. 2004;92:151-4.
Chee WW, Donovan TE, Kahn RL. Indirect inhibition of polymerization of a polyvinyl siloxane impression material: A case report. Quintessence Int. 1991;22:133-5.
Terry DA, Leinfelder KF, Lee EA, James A. The impression: A blueprint to restorative success. Inside Dentistry. 2006;2:12-21.
Burgess JO. Impression material basics. Inside Dentistry. 2005;1:30-3.
Berry T, Radz G. New technologies for easier and more accurate impressions. Inside Dentistry. 2007;3:46-8. 9. Baer CJ. Identium® Vinylsiloxanether®.
Obtaining a high-quality impression with a new
elastomeric material. Inside Dentistry. 2011;7:6.
Lepe X, Johnson GH, Berg JC, Aw TC, Stroh GS. Wettability, imbibition, and mass change of disinfected low viscosity impression materials. J Prosthet Dent. 2002;88:268-76.
Nam J, Raigrodski AJ, Townsend J, Lepe X, Mancl LA. Assessment of preference of mixing techniques and duration of mixing and tray loading for two viscosities of vinyl polysiloxane material. J Prosthet Dent. 2007;97:12-7.
de Lima LMS, Borges GA, Junior LH, Spohr AM. In vivo study of the accuracy of dual-arch impressions. J Int Oral Health. 2014;6:50-5.
Flügge TV, Schlager S, Nelson K, Nahles S, Metzger MC. Precision of intraoral digital dental impressions with iTero and extraoral digitization with the iTero and a model scanner. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2013;144:471-8.
Mann K, Davids A, Range U, Richter G, Boening K, Reitemeier B. Experimental study on the use of spacer foils in two-step putty and wash impression procedures using silicone impression materials. J Prosthet Dent. 2015;113:316-22.
Rathee S, Eswaran B, Eswaran M, Prabhu R, Geetha K, Krishna GP, Jagadeshwari. A comparison of dimensional accuracy of addition silicone of different consistencies with two different spacer designs - in-vitro study. J Clin Diagn Res. 2014;8:ZC38-41. doi: 10.7860/ JCDR/2014/9139.4585.
Dugal R, Railkar B, Musani S. Comperative evaluation of dimensional accuracy of different polyvinyl techniques-in vitro study. J Int Oral Health. 2013;5:85-94. putty-wash impression
Manoj SS, Cherian KP, Chitre V, Aras M. A Comparative evaluation of the linear dimensional accuracy of four impression techniques using polyether impression material. J Indian Prosthodont Soc. 2013;13:428-38.
Singh K, Sahoo S, Prasad KD, Goel M, Singh A. Effect of different impression techniques on the dimensional accuracy of impressions using various elastomeric impression materials: An in vitro study. J Contemp Dent Pract. 2012;13:98- 106.
Chugh A, Arora A, Singh VP. Accuracy of different putty-wash impression techniques with various spacer thickness. Int J Clin Pediatr Dent. 2012;5:33-8.
Franco EB, da Cunha LF, Herrera FS, Benetti AR. Accuracy of single-step versus 2-step double-mix impression technique. ISRN 10.5402/2011/341546. doi
Raigrodski AJ, Dogan S, Mancl LA, Heindl H. A clinical comparison of two vinyl polysiloxane impression materials using the one-step technique. J Prosthet Dent. 2009;102:179-86.
Caputi S, Varvara G. Dimensional accuracy of resultant casts made by a monophase, one-step and two-step, and a novel two-step putty/light- body impression technique: An in vitro study. J Prosthet Dent. 2008;99:274-81.
Finger WJ, Kurokawa R, Takahashi H, Komatsu M. Sulcus reproduction with elastomeric impression materials: A new in vitro testing method. Dent Mater. 2008;24:1655-60.
Johnson GH, Mancl LA, Schwedhelm ER, Verhoef DR, Lepe X. Clinical trial investigating success rates for polyether and vinyl polysiloxane impressions made with full-arch and dual-arch plastic trays. J Prosthet Dent. 2010;103:13-22.
Nissan J, Gross M, Shifman A, Assif D. Effect of wash bulk on the accuracy of polyvinyl siloxane putty-wash impressions. J Oral Rehabil. 2002;29:357-61.
Nissan J, Laufer BZ, Brosh T, Assif D. Accuracy of three polyvinyl siloxane putty-wash impression techniques. J Prosthet Dent. 2000;83:161-5.
Yuzbasioglu E, Kurt H, Turunc R, Bilir H. Comparison of digital and conventional impression techniques: Evaluation of patients’ perception, treatment comfort, effectiveness and clinical outcomes. BMC Oral Health. 2014;14:10.
Almedia e Silva JS, Erdelt K, Edelhoff D, Araşjo É, Stimmelmayr M, Vieira LC, Güth JF. Marginal and internal fit of four-unit zirconia fixed dental prostheses based on digital and conventional impression techniques. Clin Oral Investig. 2014;18:515-23.
Wismeijer D, Mans R, van Genuchten M, Reijers HA. Patients’ preferences when comparing analogue implant impressions using a polyether impression material versus digital impressions (intraoral scan) of dental implants. Clin Oral Impl Res. 2014;25:1113-8.
Seelbach P, Brueckel C, Wöstmann B. Accuracy of digital and conventional impression techniques and workflow. Clin Oral Investig. 2013;17:1759- 64.
Kim SY, Kim MJ, Han JS, Yeo IS, Lim YJ, Kwon HB. Accuracy of dies captured by an intraoral digital impression system using parallel confocal imaging. Int J Prosthodont. 2013;26:161-3.
Lee SJ, Gallucci GO. Digital vs. conventional implant impressions: Efficiency outcomes. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2013;24:111-5.
Ender A, Mehl A. Full arch scans: Conventional versus digital impressions-an in-vitro study. Int J Comput Dent. 2011;14:11-21.
Givan D, Burgess JO, O’Neal SJ, Aponte AA. Prospective evaluation of ceramic crowns by digital and conventional impressions. J Dent Res. 2011;90 (Spec Iss Letter A):380.
Syrek A, Reich G, Ranftl D, Klein C, Cerny B, Brodesser J. Clinical evaluation of all-ceramic crowns fabricated from intraoral digital impressions based on the principle of active wavefront sampling. J Dent. 2010;38:553-9.
Kugel G, Chaimattayompol N, Perry R, Ferreira S, Sharma S, Towers J, Stark P. Comparison of digital vs. conventional impression systems for marginal accuracy. J Dent Res. 2008;87(Spec Iss Letter A):1119.
Henkel GL. A comparison of fixed prostheses generated from conventional vs digitally scanned dental impressions. Compend Contin Educ Dent. 2007;28:422-4, 426-8, 430-1.
Hamalian TA, Nasr E, Chidiac JJ. Impression materials in fixed prosthodontics: Influence of choice on clinical procedure. J Prosthodont. 2011;20:153-60.
Balkenhol M, Haunschild S, Lochnit G, Wöstmann B. Surfactant release from hydrophilized vinylpolysiloxanes. J Dent Res. 2009;88:668-72.
Kanehira M, Finger WJ, Komatsu M. Surface detail reproduction with new elastomeric dental impression materials. Quintessence Int. 2007;38:479-88.
Erkut S, Can G. Effects of glow-discharge and surfactant treatments on the wettability of vinyl polysiloxane impression materials. J Prosthet Dent. 2005;93:356-63.
Petrie CS, Walker MP, O’mahony AM, Spencer P. Dimensional accuracy and surface detail reproduction of two hydrophilic vinyl polysiloxane impression materials tested under dry, moist, and wet conditions. J Prosthet Dent. 2003;90:365-72.
Baráth Z, Szüts G, Braunitzer G, Radnai M. Dimensional accuracy of two-step impressions measured on scanned casts in CAD. J Prosthodont. 2015;24:629-33.
Journal of Clinical Sciences