固定局部义齿印模的临床评估

N. Hayat, JU Hadi, F. Ullah, .. Faisal, S. Faryal, B. Siraj
{"title":"固定局部义齿印模的临床评估","authors":"N. Hayat, JU Hadi, F. Ullah, .. Faisal, S. Faryal, B. Siraj","doi":"10.54112/bcsrj.v2024i1.745","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Accurate impressions of teeth and the area to be restored are required in fixed Prosthodontics treatment for the laboratory to fabricate the desired restoration without any faults. The study aimed to raise awareness about the importance of improving individual skills to minimise impression errors, provide patients with high-quality prosthetics, and enhance their comfort. The study's objectives were to evaluate the clinically detectable errors in the impressions and to determine co-relations between possible risk factors that cause impression errors. This study follows a descriptive cross-sectional study design, which involves the probability convenience sampling technique, consisting of 150   impressions studied for the type of tray, type of material, type of technique, type of prosthesis ordered, arch of impression involved, size of tray, number of units prepared and retraction cord used. Impression errors were also assessed, including finish line errors, tears in the finish line, air bubbles, voids, and blood formed in the impression. Data were analysed with SPSS version 25.0, and correlations were found through a chi-square test.  One hundred fifty impressions were analysed, with 80 being maxillary arch impressions. Most impressions utilised full arch trays (91.33%), with Monophase being the predominant technique (77%). Alginate emerged as the most commonly employed impression material (76%), and the most commonly used tray was the full arch tray (137). Crown preparations accounted for 70% of cases. Notably, retraction cord usage was observed in 58.7% of impressions. The study analysed 150 Impressions, finding 56.7% finish line errors, 21.3% tears, 19.3% bubbles, 80.7% voids, and 6% traces of blood. Our study reveals that material type, impression technique, no crown, arch of impression, prosthesis ordered, and retraction cord have a significant association (P < 0.05) with the impression errors, except tray type having no significant association (P > 0.05) with the impression errors. Based on the study's outcomes, this research identifies alginate and the monophase technique as prevalent choices among clinicians. The most common were voids and finish line errors, with tray selection showing no significant impact. The use of retraction cords notably reduces impression errors, indicating a strong association. Overall, crown impressions exhibit greater accuracy compared to bridge impressions.","PeriodicalId":504575,"journal":{"name":"Biological and Clinical Sciences Research Journal","volume":"9 9","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-03-14","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"CLINICAL EVALUATION OF FIXED PARTIAL DENTURE IMPRESSION\",\"authors\":\"N. Hayat, JU Hadi, F. Ullah, .. Faisal, S. Faryal, B. Siraj\",\"doi\":\"10.54112/bcsrj.v2024i1.745\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Accurate impressions of teeth and the area to be restored are required in fixed Prosthodontics treatment for the laboratory to fabricate the desired restoration without any faults. The study aimed to raise awareness about the importance of improving individual skills to minimise impression errors, provide patients with high-quality prosthetics, and enhance their comfort. The study's objectives were to evaluate the clinically detectable errors in the impressions and to determine co-relations between possible risk factors that cause impression errors. This study follows a descriptive cross-sectional study design, which involves the probability convenience sampling technique, consisting of 150   impressions studied for the type of tray, type of material, type of technique, type of prosthesis ordered, arch of impression involved, size of tray, number of units prepared and retraction cord used. Impression errors were also assessed, including finish line errors, tears in the finish line, air bubbles, voids, and blood formed in the impression. Data were analysed with SPSS version 25.0, and correlations were found through a chi-square test.  One hundred fifty impressions were analysed, with 80 being maxillary arch impressions. Most impressions utilised full arch trays (91.33%), with Monophase being the predominant technique (77%). Alginate emerged as the most commonly employed impression material (76%), and the most commonly used tray was the full arch tray (137). Crown preparations accounted for 70% of cases. Notably, retraction cord usage was observed in 58.7% of impressions. The study analysed 150 Impressions, finding 56.7% finish line errors, 21.3% tears, 19.3% bubbles, 80.7% voids, and 6% traces of blood. Our study reveals that material type, impression technique, no crown, arch of impression, prosthesis ordered, and retraction cord have a significant association (P < 0.05) with the impression errors, except tray type having no significant association (P > 0.05) with the impression errors. Based on the study's outcomes, this research identifies alginate and the monophase technique as prevalent choices among clinicians. The most common were voids and finish line errors, with tray selection showing no significant impact. The use of retraction cords notably reduces impression errors, indicating a strong association. Overall, crown impressions exhibit greater accuracy compared to bridge impressions.\",\"PeriodicalId\":504575,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Biological and Clinical Sciences Research Journal\",\"volume\":\"9 9\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-03-14\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Biological and Clinical Sciences Research Journal\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.54112/bcsrj.v2024i1.745\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Biological and Clinical Sciences Research Journal","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.54112/bcsrj.v2024i1.745","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

在固定义齿修复治疗中,需要准确的牙齿和修复区域印模,这样技工室才能准确无误地制作出所需的修复体。该研究旨在提高人们对提高个人技能的重要性的认识,以最大限度地减少印模误差,为患者提供高质量的修复体,并提高他们的舒适度。研究的目的是评估临床上可检测到的印模错误,并确定导致印模错误的可能风险因素之间的相互关系。这项研究采用了描述性横断面研究设计,包括概率方便抽样技术,对 150 份印模进行了研究,研究内容包括托盘类型、材料类型、技术类型、订购的修复体类型、涉及的印模弓、托盘大小、制备单位数量和使用的回缩线。此外,还对印模错误进行了评估,包括终点线错误、终点线撕裂、气泡、空洞和印模中的血迹。数据使用 SPSS 25.0 版进行分析,并通过卡方检验找出相关性。 共分析了150个印模,其中80个是上颌牙弓印模。大多数印模使用全牙弓托盘(91.33%),其中单相托盘是最主要的技术(77%)。藻酸盐是最常用的印模材料(76%),最常用的托盘是全牙弓托盘(137)。牙冠预备占 70%。值得注意的是,58.7%的印模使用了牵引绳。研究分析了 150 个印模,发现 56.7% 的印模终点线错误,21.3% 的印模撕裂,19.3% 的印模有气泡,80.7% 的印模有空隙,6% 的印模有血迹。我们的研究显示,材料类型、印模技术、无牙冠、印模弓、订购的修复体和牵引绳与印模错误有显著相关性(P < 0.05),但托盘类型与印模错误无显著相关性(P > 0.05)。根据研究结果,本研究发现藻酸盐和单相技术是临床医生的普遍选择。最常见的是空洞和终点线错误,而托盘的选择没有明显影响。牵引绳的使用明显减少了印模错误,这表明两者之间存在密切联系。总体而言,牙冠印模比牙桥印模更准确。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
CLINICAL EVALUATION OF FIXED PARTIAL DENTURE IMPRESSION
Accurate impressions of teeth and the area to be restored are required in fixed Prosthodontics treatment for the laboratory to fabricate the desired restoration without any faults. The study aimed to raise awareness about the importance of improving individual skills to minimise impression errors, provide patients with high-quality prosthetics, and enhance their comfort. The study's objectives were to evaluate the clinically detectable errors in the impressions and to determine co-relations between possible risk factors that cause impression errors. This study follows a descriptive cross-sectional study design, which involves the probability convenience sampling technique, consisting of 150   impressions studied for the type of tray, type of material, type of technique, type of prosthesis ordered, arch of impression involved, size of tray, number of units prepared and retraction cord used. Impression errors were also assessed, including finish line errors, tears in the finish line, air bubbles, voids, and blood formed in the impression. Data were analysed with SPSS version 25.0, and correlations were found through a chi-square test.  One hundred fifty impressions were analysed, with 80 being maxillary arch impressions. Most impressions utilised full arch trays (91.33%), with Monophase being the predominant technique (77%). Alginate emerged as the most commonly employed impression material (76%), and the most commonly used tray was the full arch tray (137). Crown preparations accounted for 70% of cases. Notably, retraction cord usage was observed in 58.7% of impressions. The study analysed 150 Impressions, finding 56.7% finish line errors, 21.3% tears, 19.3% bubbles, 80.7% voids, and 6% traces of blood. Our study reveals that material type, impression technique, no crown, arch of impression, prosthesis ordered, and retraction cord have a significant association (P < 0.05) with the impression errors, except tray type having no significant association (P > 0.05) with the impression errors. Based on the study's outcomes, this research identifies alginate and the monophase technique as prevalent choices among clinicians. The most common were voids and finish line errors, with tray selection showing no significant impact. The use of retraction cords notably reduces impression errors, indicating a strong association. Overall, crown impressions exhibit greater accuracy compared to bridge impressions.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信