不同材料在全口牙科印模中的变形评估与操作者经验的关系:活体比较。

IF 2.1 4区 医学 Q2 DENTISTRY, ORAL SURGERY & MEDICINE
Fiona-Leandra Zaugg, Samir Abou-Ayash, Pedro Molinero-Mourelle, Vinicius Rizzo-Marques, Martin Schimmel, Julia-Gabriela Wittneben
{"title":"不同材料在全口牙科印模中的变形评估与操作者经验的关系:活体比较。","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>Evaluating the distortion probability in impressions of completely dentate arches when different impression materials are used in relation to operator experience.</p><p><strong>Material and methods: </strong>Twenty-eight students (group A) and 7 dentists (group B) performed 3 maxillary impressions on 28 students (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 by heatmaps and planar deviations were investigated. If planar deviations of >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 measures ANOVA and post-hoc tests (a < 0.05).</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 (<i>P</i> = 0.003) and group B (<i>P</i> < 0.0001). In group B only, PE showed a lower distortion probability than VSE (<i>P</i> = 0.02). There was no difference between the study groups (<i>P</i> = 0.42). Considering 500 μm as a threshold for distortions, there was no difference between impression materials (<i>P</i> = 0.17) or study groups (<i>P</i> = 0.53).</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>There were no statistic significant differences in relation to operator experience. Different impression materials had a significant impact on distortion probability. Polyether impressions showed the lowest distortion probability. Int J Prosthodont. 10.11607/ijp.8555.</p>","PeriodicalId":50292,"journal":{"name":"International Journal of Prosthodontics","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.1000,"publicationDate":"2023-06-05","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.\",\"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>Evaluating the distortion probability in impressions of completely dentate arches when different impression materials are used in relation to operator experience.</p><p><strong>Material and methods: </strong>Twenty-eight students (group A) and 7 dentists (group B) performed 3 maxillary impressions on 28 students (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 by heatmaps and planar deviations were investigated. If planar deviations of >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 measures ANOVA and post-hoc tests (a < 0.05).</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 (<i>P</i> = 0.003) and group B (<i>P</i> < 0.0001). In group B only, PE showed a lower distortion probability than VSE (<i>P</i> = 0.02). There was no difference between the study groups (<i>P</i> = 0.42). Considering 500 μm as a threshold for distortions, there was no difference between impression materials (<i>P</i> = 0.17) or study groups (<i>P</i> = 0.53).</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>There were no statistic significant differences in relation to operator experience. Different impression materials had a significant impact on distortion probability. Polyether impressions showed the lowest distortion probability. Int J Prosthodont. 10.11607/ijp.8555.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":50292,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"International Journal of Prosthodontics\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.1000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-06-05\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"International Journal of Prosthodontics\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.11607/ijp.8555\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"DENTISTRY, ORAL SURGERY & MEDICINE\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"International Journal of Prosthodontics","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.11607/ijp.8555","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"DENTISTRY, ORAL SURGERY & MEDICINE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

目的:评估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: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名学生(参与者)进行了3次上颌印模。石膏模型制作完成后进行数字化处理。口内扫描作为对照。母模和口内扫描之间的差异通过热图进行可视化,并对平面偏差进行调查。如果发现平面偏差大于 120 μm,印模将被评为 "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。统计分析包括方差分析和事后检验(a < 0.05):结果:当将 120 μm 作为失真阈值时,在 A 组(P = 0.003)和 B 组(P < 0.0001)中,IHC 印模的失真概率高于 PE 印模。仅在 B 组中,PE 的失真概率低于 VSE(P = 0.02)。各研究组之间没有差异(P = 0.42)。将 500 μm 作为变形的临界值,不同印模材料(P = 0.17)和不同研究组(P = 0.53)之间没有差异:结论:操作者的经验在统计学上没有明显差异。不同的印模材料对变形概率有显著影响。聚醚印模的变形概率最低。Int J Prosthodont.10.11607/ijp.8555.
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Distortion assessment of different materials in full-arch dentate impressions in relation to operator experience: a comparative in vivo.

Purpose: Evaluating the distortion probability in impressions of completely dentate arches when different impression materials are used in relation to operator experience.

Material and methods: Twenty-eight students (group A) and 7 dentists (group B) performed 3 maxillary impressions on 28 students (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 by heatmaps and planar deviations were investigated. If planar deviations of >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 measures ANOVA and post-hoc tests (a < 0.05).

Results: When 120 μm was considered as the threshold for distortions, IHC impressions showed higher distortion probability than PE impressions in group A (P = 0.003) and group B (P < 0.0001). In group B only, PE showed a lower distortion probability than VSE (P = 0.02). There was no difference between the study groups (P = 0.42). Considering 500 μm as a threshold for distortions, there was no difference between impression materials (P = 0.17) or study groups (P = 0.53).

Conclusion: There were no statistic significant differences in relation to operator experience. Different impression materials had a significant impact on distortion probability. Polyether impressions showed the lowest distortion probability. Int J Prosthodont. 10.11607/ijp.8555.

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
International Journal of Prosthodontics
International Journal of Prosthodontics 医学-牙科与口腔外科
CiteScore
3.20
自引率
4.30%
发文量
82
审稿时长
6-12 weeks
期刊介绍: Official Journal of the European Association for Osseointegration (EAO), the International College of Prosthodontists (ICP), the German Society of Prosthodontics and Dental Materials Science (DGPro), and the Italian Academy of Prosthetic Dentistry (AIOP) Prosthodontics demands a clinical research emphasis on patient- and dentist-mediated concerns in the management of oral rehabilitation needs. It is about making and implementing the best clinical decisions to enhance patients'' quality of life via applied biologic architecture - a role that far exceeds that of traditional prosthetic dentistry, with its emphasis on materials and techniques. The International Journal of Prosthodontics is dedicated to exploring and developing this conceptual shift in the role of today''s prosthodontist, clinician, and educator alike. The editorial board is composed of a distinguished team of leading international scholars.
×
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