Background Although intraoral scanners are known to have good accuracy in computer-aided impression making (CAIM), their effect on time efficiency is not. Little is known about the time required to make a digital impression. The purpose of the authors' in vitro investigation was to evaluate the time efficiency of intraoral scanners. Methods The authors used three different intraoral scanners to digitize a single abutment (scenario 1), a short-span fixed dental prosthesis (scenario 2) and a full-arch prosthesis preparation (scenario 3). They measured the procedure durations for the several scenarios and compiled and contrasted the procedure durations for three conventional impression materials. Results The mean total procedure durations for making digital impressions of scenarios 1, 2 and 3 were as much as 5 minutes 57 seconds, 6 minutes 57 seconds, and 20 minutes 55 seconds, respectively. Results showed statistically significant differences between all scanners ( P Conclusions The authors found that CAIM was significantly faster for all tested scenarios. This suggests that CAIM might be beneficial in establishing a more time-efficient work flow. Practical Implications On the basis of the results of this in vitro study, the authors found CAIM to be superior regarding time efficiency in comparison with conventional approaches and might accelerate the work flow of making impressions.

The time efficiency of intraoral scanners: An in vitro comparative study

Qualitative computer aided evaluation of dental impressions in vivo.

Background. Although intraoral scanners are known to have good accuracy in computer-aided impression making (CAIM), their effect on time efficiency is not. Little is known about the time required to make a digital impression. The purpose of the authors’ in vitro investigation was to evaluate the time efficiency of intraoral scanners. Methods. The authors used three different intraoral scanners to digitize a single abutment (scenario 1), a short-span fixed dental prosthesis (scenario 2) and a fullarch prosthesis preparation (scenario 3). They measured the procedure durations for the several scenarios and compiled and contrasted the procedure durations for three conventional impression materials. Results. The mean total procedure durations for making digital impressions of scenarios 1, 2 and 3 were as much as 5 minutes 57 seconds, 6 minutes 57 seconds, and 20 minutes 55 seconds, respectively. Results showed statistically significant differences between all scanners (P < .05), except Lava (3M ESPE, St. Paul, Minn.) and iTero with foot pedal (Align Technology, San Jose, Calif.) for scenario 1, CEREC (Sirona, Bensheim, Germany) and CEREC with foot pedal for scenario 2, and iTero and iTero with foot pedal for scenarios 2 and 3. The compiled procedure durations for making conventional impressions in scenarios 1 and 2 ranged between 18 minutes 15 seconds and 27 minutes 25 seconds; for scenario 3, they ranged between 21 minutes 25 seconds and 30 minutes 25 seconds.

https://jada.ada.org/article/S0002-8177(14)60113-6/pdf

An in vitro comparative study

Introduction: Dimensional accuracy of impression materials is crucial for the production of working casts in Fixed Prosthodontics. The accurate replication of tooth preparations and their arch position requires impression materials that exhibit limited distortion.

Methods: This study was conducted to comparatively evaluate the dimensional accuracy of additional silicones by comparing two different techniques and spacer designs, by measuring the linear changes in interpreparation distance. The impressions were made from a stainless steel master die simulating a three unit bridge. A total 80 die stone (type IV, Ultrarock) models were obtained from the impressions made using two different parameters. The two different parameters are Multimix and Monophasic technique and different spacer designs.

Result: The interpreparation distance of the abutments in the casts was measured using a travelling microscope. Each sample was measured thrice and the mean value was calculated. The results obtained were statistically analysed and the values fall within the clinically acceptable range.

Conclusion: The most accurate combination is multimix technique with spacer design which uses less bulk of impression material.

A Comparison of Dimensional Accuracy of Addition Silicone of Different Consistencies with Two Different Spacer Designs - In-vitro Study.

Objectives: To investigate the accuracy of four commercialtypes of additional silicone impression materials (AFFINIS ® ,Virtual ® , Relay 2002 CD ® and Silagum ® ). Materials and methods: The accuracy of impression materialwas measured indirectly by measuring three dimensions onstone cast poured from impressions of a stainless steel mastermodel. The three dimensions on stone cast were measured at1 hour, 2 days, 1 and 2 weeks after making the impression.Two impression techniques were used in the current study. Thetwo-step impression technique was used for AFFINIS ® andVirtual ® , while single-step technique was used for Relay 2002CD ® and Silagum ® materials. Twenty impressions were madeof the master cast at four different periods for each of the testedfour materials with a total of 320 impressions. Two verticaldimensions and one horizontal dimension were measured onmaster cast using optical microscope. Statistical analysis wasrun to compare the mean measurements for tested casts fromeach impression and time interval with the master cast. Results: No statistical significant differences were found(p > 0.05) in the accuracy of tested materials. There was nosignificant difference of master cast and impression cast meansover time. Additionally, impression technique could be correlatedwith accuracy. Conclusion: The tested additional silicones showed accuracyover time and they could be delayed up to 4 weeks durationwithout any significant changes in its dimensional stability.Silagum ® impression material was the most accurate followedby Relay 2002 CD ® , Virtual ® and AFFINIS ® . Clinical significance: Silagum ® impression material is mostaccurate followed by Relay 2002 CD ® , Virtual ® and AFFINIS ® .

/pdf/comparative-analysis-of-dimensional-precision-of-different-4exe15azoy.pdf

Comparative Analysis of Dimensional Precision of Different Silicone Impression Materials

Purpose Using the one-step polyvinyl siloxane impression technique, this study compared the effect of putty material working time on the dimensional accuracy of recovered improved stone casts.



Materials and Methods An acrylic resin master cast was fabricated with embedded reference points to enable both horizontal and vertical measurements. Four commercially available polyvinyl siloxane impression putties with light body washes were evaluated: 1) Extrude (Kerr), 2) Cutter (Coltere), 3) Express (3M), and 4) Reprosil (Caulk). Each putty was mixed by hand for 30 seconds, placed in a plastic stock tray, and seated on the master cast at 0, 30, 60, 90, and 120 seconds after mixing (N = 100, n = 5). The impressions were poured in improved stone, and vertical and horizontal measurements were made to 0.001 mm between reference points on recovered casts using an optical traveling microscope. ANOVA (p .05) was used to compare vertical and horizontal measurements to master cast dimensions.



Results No statistically significant difference was found among casts for all materials and time periods tested. When horizontal measurement ranges were evaluated, Extrude casts exhibited the widest range of measurement, especially when the trays were seated at 90 and 120 seconds. When vertical measurement ranges were evaluated, Express casts at 120 seconds exhibited the widest range.



Conclusions A high range of variability in vertical and horizontal dimensions occurred at the later time periods, especially for Extrude and Express casts. As a result of rapid polymerization and poor flow properties of putty materials, the impression tray should be seated within 60 seconds after putty mixing to reduce dimensional variability of recovered casts.

Working times and dimensional accuracy of the one-step putty/wash impression technique.

Handle everyday research tasks with reliable, citation-backed results

Your personal Research Agent to handle research tasks with citation-backed results

Popular Tasks used by Researchers

How can I help with your research?

Meet SciSpace

Get more enhanced response by uploading the PDFs you want me to reference.

No relevant PDFs in your library

SciSpace is the AI research assistant for academics. Run systematic literature reviews on 280M+ papers, and write papers with cited sources. Trusted by 1M+ students, PhDs & researchers.

SciSpace | AI for Research

Analyze PDFs

Code & Manuscripts

Funding & Grants

Literature & Patents

Medical & Clinical Data

Systematic Review

Visualize & Present

Web & Data

Build a Google Scholar-like website for your research.

Build a website

Create charts and images for your research

Create a Chart

Write a paper for submission to a journal

Draft a manuscript

Patent Search

Design eye-catching scientific posters in minutes.

Scientific Poster Generation

Systematic Literature Review

One task is running at the moment. Your messages will be shown right after.

Drag and drop or click here to browse

Loved by <highlight>1 million+</highlight> researchers

Extract a list of specific topics and their sources from unstructured text

Topics

Compare and analyze relevant papers that matches with your search

Papers

Get insights from PDFs and bookmarked papers from your library

My library

Recent searches

Try searching for:

Catch AI-generated content in scholarly and non-scholarly content

{ai} Detector

Ai Writer

Get PDF Summaries, highlighted text explanations 

Chat with PDF

Effortlessly create in-text citations and bibliographies in APA and 2,500 other formats

Citation generator

Get explanations, summaries, and answers on academic papers

Ease up your research workflow with {scispace}'s cohort of exciting AI tools

Elevate your academic writing skills and convey your ideas the way you want

Paraphraser

Explore our range of reading and writing tools

Your file is being prepared and should be ready in a few minutes. If it's a large file, it might take a bit longer. You can close this window, and we'll email you the file when it's done.

You have reached a maximum limit of <strong>{limit}</strong> columns in the table. Remove at least <strong>1</strong> column to add or create another one.

Jamshid Soltani

Author Tools

Chat about Author

Papers

Working times and dimensional accuracy of the one-step putty/wash impression technique.