Skip to main content
Key Specialties
Cardiology Diabetology Endocrinology Gastroenterology Geriatrics and Gerontology Gynecology and Obstetrics Hematology Infectious Disease Internal Medicine Nephrology Neurology Oncology Pediatrics Respiratory Medicine Rheumatology Surgery
Congress Coverage
2024 ACC Congress 2023 ESMO Congress 2023 EASD Congress 2023 ERS Congress 2023 ESC Congress
Clinical Collections
Advances in Alzheimer’s

At a glance: The ONWARDS insulin icodec trials

A round-up of the ONWARDS phase 3 clinical trials evaluating the novel weekly insulin icodec in people with diabetes.
ADVANCED SEARCH
Log in
Top
BMC Oral Health
Published in: BMC Oral Health 1/2020

Open Access 01-12-2020 | Silicone | Research article

Evaluation of the quality of fixed prosthesis impressions in private laboratories in a sample from Yemen

Authors: Nusaiba M. Al-Odinee, Mohsen Al-Hamzi, Ibrahim Z. Al-shami, Ahmed Madfa, Abdulwahab I. Al-Kholani, Yazeed M. Al-Olofi

Published in: BMC Oral Health | Issue 1/2020

Login to get access

Abstract

Background

Fixed prosthodontics require an accurate impression for the teeth and the area to be restored for the laboratory to fabricate the desired restoration without mistakes. This study evaluated the quality of impressions received by private laboratories for the fabrication of fixed prosthesis by describing the frequency of clinically detectable errors and by analyzing association between the various factors involved.

Methods

165 impressions were collected from four dental laboratories. Jaw involved, type of tray, size of tray, number of prepared units, type of impression materials, techniques and viscosity in case of elastomeric impressions and type of prosthesis requested were recorded. Data referring to errors and visible defects including errors in finish line, in preparation area, in silicone impression technique and blood in impression were also documented. Factors affecting errors present were also assessed. Association between dentist gender and experience years and impression errors was assessed. Chi square and Fisher exact tests used to examine the association between categorical variables and outcomes.

Results

The total of error considering not immediately pouring as an error. Alginate was the most impression used. of impressions evaluated (50.9%), 97% were have at least one visible error; 92.1% had errors in finish line, 53.9% had errors in preparation area and (72.8%) of elastomeric impressions were have at least one error in technique. Blood in impression was detected in 52.1% of impressions. Significant association was found between material type and errors in finishing line and preparation area. Significant relationships were found between gender and errors in silicone impression technique (p < 0.05).

Conclusion

Within the limitations of this study, high frequency of detectable errors was found in fixed prosthesis impressions received by private dental laboratories. This high frequency is of serious concern, as this will result in poor fitted fixed prosthesis provided to patients.
Appendix
Available only for authorised users
Literature
1.
Goodacre CJ, et al. Clinical complications in fixed prosthodontics. J Prosthet Dent. 2003;90(1):31–41. CrossRef
2.
Beier US, et al. Quality of impressions using hydrophilic polyvinyl siloxane in a clinical study of 249 patients. Int J Prosthodont. 2007;20(3):270–4.
3.
Christensen GJ. Have fixed-prosthodontic impressions become easier? J Am Dent Assoc. 2003;134(8):1121–3. CrossRef
4.
Gelbard S, et al. Effect of impression materials and techniques on the marginal fit of metal castings. J Prosthet Dent. 1994;71(1):1–6. CrossRef
5.
Chee WW, Donovan TE. Polyvinyl siloxane impression materials: a review of properties and techniques. J Prosthet Dent. 1992;68(5):728–32. CrossRef
6.
Idris B, Houston F, Claffey N. Comparison of the dimensional accuracy of one-and two-step techniques with the use of putty/wash addition silicone impression materials. J Prosthet Dent. 1995;74(5):535–41. CrossRef
7.
Millar B. Dental know how: how to make a good impression (crown and bridge). Br Dent J. 2001;191(7):402. CrossRef
8.
Thongthammachat S, et al. Dimensional accuracy of dental casts: influence of tray material, impression material, and time. J Prosthodont. 2002;11(2):98–108. CrossRef
9.
Andreescu CF. Assessment of impression techniques for crowns and bridges. Ann Prosthodont Restor Dent. 2015;1(1):5–8.
10.
Anusavice KJ, Shen C, Rawls HR. Phillips’ science of dental materials. Amsterdam: Elsevier; 2013.
11.
Chiche GJ, Harrison J, Caudill R. Impression considerations in the maxillary anterior region. Compendium. 1994;15(3):318, 320, 322.
12.
Donovan TE, Chee W. A review of contemporary impression materials and techniques. Dent Clin North Am. 2004;48(2): vi–vii, 445–70.
13.
Rubel BS. Impression materials: a comparative review of impression materials most commonly used in restorative dentistry. Dent Clin North Am. 2007;51(3):629–42. CrossRef
14.
Samet N, et al. A clinical evaluation of fixed partial denture impressions. J Prosthet Dent. 2005;94(2):112–7. CrossRef
15.
Winstanley R, Carrotte P, Johnson A. The quality of impressions for crowns and bridges received at commercial dental laboratories. Br Dent J. 1997;183(6):209. CrossRef
16.
Zu Saifudin ASA, Kamaruddin F, AbGhani SM. The quality of working impressions for the fabrication of fixed prosthodontics prostheses (crown and bridgework). European J Gen Dent. 2014;3(2):100. CrossRef
17.
Rau CT, et al. The quality of fixed prosthodontic impressions: an assessment of crown and bridge impressions received at commercial laboratories. J Am Dent Assoc. 2017;148(9):654–60. CrossRef
18.
Christensen GJ. The state of fixed prosthodontic impressions. J Am Dent Assoc. 2005;136(3):343–6. CrossRef
19.
Christensen GJ. Laboratories want better impressions. J Am Dent Assoc. 2007;138(4):527–9. CrossRef
20.
Jenkins S, et al. Quality of prescription and fabrication of single-unit crowns by general dental practitioners in Wales. J Oral Rehabil. 2009;36(2):150–6. CrossRef
21.
Albashaireh ZS, Alnegrish AS. Assessing the quality of clinical procedures and technical standards of dental laboratories in fixed partial denture therapy. Int J Prosthodont 1999;12(3).
22.
Mitchell ST, et al. A preliminary survey of impression trays used in the fabrication of fixed indirect restorations. J Prosthodont. 2009;18(7):582–8. CrossRef
23.
Stewardson DA. Trends in indirect dentistry: 5. Impression materials and techniques. Dent update. 2005;32(7):374–93. CrossRef
24.
Kurtzman G, Strassler H. Identification and correction of common impression concerns: protocol and considerations. Pract Periodontics Aesthet Dent. 2004;16(5):377–82 (quiz 384).
25.
Abuasi H, Wassell R. Comparison of a range of addition silicone putty-wash impression materials used in the one-stage technique. Eur J Prosthodont Restor Dent. 1994;2(3):117–22.
26.
Wassell R, Barker D, Walls A. Crowns and other extra-coronal restorations: impression materials and technique. Br Dent J. 2002;192(12):679. CrossRef
27.
Al Hamad KQ, et al. A clinical study on the effects of cordless and conventional retraction techniques on the gingival and periodontal health. J Clin Periodontol. 2008;35(12):1053–8. CrossRef
28.
Kostić I, et al. Comparative review of gingival retraction agents. Acta Med Mediterr. 2012;51(1):81–4. CrossRef
29.
Rosenstiel SF, Land MF. Contemporary fixed prosthodontics-E-book. Amsterdam: Elsevier; 2015.
30.
Arora N, et al. Clinical evaluation of different pre-impression preparation procedures of dental arch. J Int Oral Health. 2015;7(7):80.
31.
Jagger D, et al. The effect of a range of disinfectants on the dimensional accuracy and stability of some impression materials. Eur J Prosthodont Restor Dent. 2007;15(1):23.
32.
Leung RL, Schonfeld SE. Gypsum casts as a potential source of microbial cross-contamination. J Prosthet Dent. 1983;49(2):210–1. CrossRef
33.
Mahmood RN, et al. Quality of final impressions and prescriptions for fixed prosthodontics. Int J Prosthodont Endod. 2013;3(3):87.
34.
Craig RG. Restorative dental materials. 11th ed. Amsterdam: Elsevier; 2002.
35.
Phoenix RD, Cagna DR, DeFreest CF. Stewart’s clinical removable partial prosthodontics. Chicago: Quintessence; 2003.
36.
Hung SH, et al. Accuracy of one-step versus two-step putty wash addition silicone impression technique. J Prosthet Dent. 1992;67(5):583–9. CrossRef
37.
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(4):274–81. CrossRef
38.
Craig R. Review of dental impression materials. Adv Dent Res. 1988;2(1):51–64. CrossRef
39.
Mandikos MN. Polyvinyl siloxane impression materials: an update on clinical use. Aust Dent J. 1998;43(6):428–34. CrossRef
40.
Nissan J, et al. Accuracy of three polyvinyl siloxane putty-wash impression techniques. J Prosthet Dent. 2000;83(2):161–5. CrossRef
41.
Nissan J, et al. Effect of wash bulk on the accuracy of polyvinyl siloxane putty-wash impressions. J Oral Rehabil. 2002;29(4):357–61. CrossRef
42.
Chee WW, Donovan TE. Fine detail reproduction of very high viscosity poly (vinyl siloxane) impression materials. Int J Prosthodont. 1989;2(4):368–70.
43.
Ragain JC, et al. Detail reproduction, contact angles, and die hardness of elastomeric impression and gypsum die material combinations. Int J Prosthodont. 2000;13(3):214–20.
44.
Carrotte P, Johnson A, Winstanley R. The influence of the impression tray on the accuracy of impressions for crown and bridge work–an investigation and review. Br Dent J. 1998;185(11):580. CrossRef
Metadata
Title
Evaluation of the quality of fixed prosthesis impressions in private laboratories in a sample from Yemen
Authors
Nusaiba M. Al-Odinee
Mohsen Al-Hamzi
Ibrahim Z. Al-shami
Ahmed Madfa
Abdulwahab I. Al-Kholani
Yazeed M. Al-Olofi
Publication date
01-12-2020
Publisher
BioMed Central
Published in
BMC Oral Health / Issue 1/2020
Electronic ISSN: 1472-6831
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1186/s12903-020-01294-1

Other articles of this Issue 1/2020

BMC Oral Health 1/2020 Go to the issue

Research article

Cytocompatibility of 3D printed dental materials for temporary restorations on fibroblasts

Research article

Influence of the implant-abutment connection on the ratio between height and thickness of tissues at the buccal zenith: a randomized controlled trial on 188 implants placed in 104 patients

Research article

Effect of crown to implant ratio and implantoplasty on the fracture resistance of narrow dental implants with marginal bone loss: an in vitro study

Research article

Epidemiology of orthodontic treatment need in southwestern Ethiopian children: a cross sectional study using the index of orthodontic treatment need

Research article

Effects of ERK/p38 MAPKs signaling pathways on MTA-mediated osteo/odontogenic differentiation of stem cells from apical papilla: a vitro study

Research article

Epinephrine penetrates through gingival sulcus unlike keratinized gingiva and evokes remote vasoconstriction in human