Fiona-Leandra Zaugg, Samir Abou-Ayash, Pedro Molinero-Mourelle, Vinicius Rizzo-Marques, Martin Schimmel, Julia-Gabriela Wittneben
{"title":"不同材料在全口牙槽骨印模中的变形评估与操作者经验的关系:体内对比研究。","authors":"Fiona-Leandra Zaugg, Samir Abou-Ayash, Pedro Molinero-Mourelle, Vinicius Rizzo-Marques, Martin Schimmel, Julia-Gabriela Wittneben","doi":"10.11607/ijp.8555","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Purpose: </strong>To evaluate the distortion probability in impressions of completely dentate arches when different impression materials are used in relation to operator experience.</p><p><strong>Materials and methods: </strong>A total of 28 students (Group A) and 7 dentists (Group B) performed three maxillary impressions on 28 participants, each using vinyl siloxane ether (VSE), polyether (PE), and irreversible hydrocolloid (IHC). Gypsum master casts were fabricated and subsequently digitized. Intraoral scans were taken as a control. Differences between master casts and intraoral scans were visualized with heatmaps, and planar deviations were investigated. If planar deviations > 120 μm were found, the impression was rated as 'distorted.' An additional superimposition using the casts from VSE or PE was performed to confirm the presence of distortions. The relative number of surfaces with distortions in each impression was calculated. The procedure was repeated for a distortion threshold of 500 μm. The statistical analyses included repeated measures ANOVA (RMA) and post hoc tests (α < .05).</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>When 120 μm was considered as the threshold for distortions, IHC impressions showed higher distortion probability than PE impressions in Group A (P = .003) and Group B (P < .0001). In Group B, PE showed a lower distortion probability than VSE (P = .02). There was no significant difference between the study groups (P = .42). Considering 500 μm as a threshold for distortions, there was no difference between impression materials (P = .17) or study groups (P = .53).</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>There were no statistically significant differences in relation to operator experience. Different impression materials had a significant impact on distortion probability. PE impressions showed the lowest distortion probability.</p>","PeriodicalId":94232,"journal":{"name":"The International journal of prosthodontics","volume":"37 5","pages":"526-531"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-09-27","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Distortion Assessment of Different Materials in Full-Arch Dentate Impressions in Relation to Operator Experience: A Comparative In Vivo Study.\",\"authors\":\"Fiona-Leandra Zaugg, Samir Abou-Ayash, Pedro Molinero-Mourelle, Vinicius Rizzo-Marques, Martin Schimmel, Julia-Gabriela Wittneben\",\"doi\":\"10.11607/ijp.8555\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Purpose: </strong>To evaluate the distortion probability in impressions of completely dentate arches when different impression materials are used in relation to operator experience.</p><p><strong>Materials and methods: </strong>A total of 28 students (Group A) and 7 dentists (Group B) performed three maxillary impressions on 28 participants, each using vinyl siloxane ether (VSE), polyether (PE), and irreversible hydrocolloid (IHC). Gypsum master casts were fabricated and subsequently digitized. Intraoral scans were taken as a control. Differences between master casts and intraoral scans were visualized with heatmaps, and planar deviations were investigated. If planar deviations > 120 μm were found, the impression was rated as 'distorted.' An additional superimposition using the casts from VSE or PE was performed to confirm the presence of distortions. The relative number of surfaces with distortions in each impression was calculated. The procedure was repeated for a distortion threshold of 500 μm. The statistical analyses included repeated measures ANOVA (RMA) and post hoc tests (α < .05).</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>When 120 μm was considered as the threshold for distortions, IHC impressions showed higher distortion probability than PE impressions in Group A (P = .003) and Group B (P < .0001). In Group B, PE showed a lower distortion probability than VSE (P = .02). There was no significant difference between the study groups (P = .42). Considering 500 μm as a threshold for distortions, there was no difference between impression materials (P = .17) or study groups (P = .53).</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>There were no statistically significant differences in relation to operator experience. Different impression materials had a significant impact on distortion probability. PE impressions showed the lowest distortion probability.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":94232,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"The International journal of prosthodontics\",\"volume\":\"37 5\",\"pages\":\"526-531\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-09-27\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"The International journal of prosthodontics\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.11607/ijp.8555\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"The International journal of prosthodontics","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.11607/ijp.8555","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
目的:评估在使用不同印模材料时,完全牙弓印模的变形概率与操作者经验的关系:共有 28 名学生(A 组)和 7 名牙医(B 组)分别使用乙烯基硅氧烷醚(VSE)、聚醚(PE)和不可逆水胶体(IHC)对 28 名参与者进行了三次上颌印模。制作石膏母模,然后进行数字化处理。口内扫描作为对照。通过热图观察铸模和口内扫描之间的差异,并研究平面偏差。如果发现平面偏差大于 120 μm,则将印模评为 "失真"。使用 VSE 或 PE 的铸模再进行一次叠加,以确认是否存在变形。计算每个印模中存在变形的表面的相对数量。畸变阈值为 500 μm 时,重复上述步骤。统计分析包括重复测量方差分析(RMA)和事后检验(α < .05):如果将 120 μm 作为失真的阈值,在 A 组(P =;.003)和 B 组(P <.0001)中,IHC 印模比 PE 印模显示出更高的失真概率。在 B 组中,PE 显示的失真概率低于 VSE(P =;.02)。研究组之间没有明显差异(P = .42)。以 500 μm 为失真阈值,印模材料(P =;.17)和研究组(P =;.53)之间没有差异:结论:与操作者经验有关的差异没有统计学意义。不同的印模材料对变形概率有显著影响。PE印模的变形概率最低。
Distortion Assessment of Different Materials in Full-Arch Dentate Impressions in Relation to Operator Experience: A Comparative In Vivo Study.
Purpose: To evaluate the distortion probability in impressions of completely dentate arches when different impression materials are used in relation to operator experience.
Materials and methods: A total of 28 students (Group A) and 7 dentists (Group B) performed three maxillary impressions on 28 participants, each using vinyl siloxane ether (VSE), polyether (PE), and irreversible hydrocolloid (IHC). Gypsum master casts were fabricated and subsequently digitized. Intraoral scans were taken as a control. Differences between master casts and intraoral scans were visualized with heatmaps, and planar deviations were investigated. If planar deviations > 120 μm were found, the impression was rated as 'distorted.' An additional superimposition using the casts from VSE or PE was performed to confirm the presence of distortions. The relative number of surfaces with distortions in each impression was calculated. The procedure was repeated for a distortion threshold of 500 μm. The statistical analyses included repeated measures ANOVA (RMA) and post hoc tests (α < .05).
Results: When 120 μm was considered as the threshold for distortions, IHC impressions showed higher distortion probability than PE impressions in Group A (P = .003) and Group B (P < .0001). In Group B, PE showed a lower distortion probability than VSE (P = .02). There was no significant difference between the study groups (P = .42). Considering 500 μm as a threshold for distortions, there was no difference between impression materials (P = .17) or study groups (P = .53).
Conclusions: There were no statistically significant differences in relation to operator experience. Different impression materials had a significant impact on distortion probability. PE impressions showed the lowest distortion probability.