Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39347818›Full record

ArticleClinical oral investigations2024

Accuracy of polyether and vinylpolysiloxane impressions when using different types of 3D-printed impression trays - an in vitro study.

Stefan Rues, David Depré, Thomas Stober, Peter Rammelsberg, Andreas Zenthöfer

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Clinical oral investigations, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

4 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors.

Stefan RuesDepartment of Prosthodontics, University of Heidelberg, Im Neuenheimer Feld 400, 69120, Heidelberg, Germany. stefan.rues@med.uni-heidelberg.de.
David DepréDepartment of Prosthodontics, University of Heidelberg, Im Neuenheimer Feld 400, 69120, Heidelberg, Germany.
Thomas StoberDepartment of Prosthodontics, University of Heidelberg, Im Neuenheimer Feld 400, 69120, Heidelberg, Germany.
Peter RammelsbergDepartment of Prosthodontics, University of Heidelberg, Im Neuenheimer Feld 400, 69120, Heidelberg, Germany.
Andreas ZenthöferDepartment of Prosthodontics, University of Heidelberg, Im Neuenheimer Feld 400, 69120, Heidelberg, Germany.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectivesTo investigate dimensional accuracy of polyether (PE) and vinylpolysiloxane (VPS) impressions taken with manually fabricated and 3D-printed trays. MATERIALS AND

methodsTo evaluate impression accuracy, highly precise digital data of a metallic lower jaw model with prepared teeth (regions 34 and 36), an implant (region 47) and three precision balls placed occlusally along the dental arch served as reference. PE (Impregum, 3M Oral Care) and VPS (Aquasil, Dentsply Sirona) impressions (n = 10/group) were taken with trays fabricated using different materials and manufacturing techniques (FDM: filament deposition modeling, material: Arfona Tray, Arfona; printer: Pro2, Raise3D; DLP: digital light processing, material: V-Print Tray, VOCO, printer: Max, Asiga; MPR: manual processing with light-curing plates, material: LC Tray, Müller-Omicron) including an open implant impression. Scans of resulting stone models were compared with the reference situation. Global distance and angular deviations as well as local trueness and precision for abutment teeth and scan abutment were computed. Possible statistical effects were analyzed using ANOVA.

resultsClinically acceptable global accuracy was found (all mean absolute distance changes < 100 μm) and local accuracy for single abutments was excellent. All factors (abutment type, impression material, tray material) affected global accuracy (p < 0.05). In particular with PE impressions, MPR trays led to the best accuracies, both in horizontal and vertical direction.

conclusionsWithin the limitations of this in vitro study, impression accuracy was high in use of both polyether and vinylpolysiloxane combined with different 3D-printed and customized trays making them recommendable for at least impressions for smaller fixed dental prostheses. Manually fabricated trays were overall still the best choice if utmost precision is required. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: Based on the results of this study, use of innovative CAD-CAM fabrication of individual impression trays fulfills the perquisites to be a viable option for impression making. In the sense of translational research, performance should be proved in a clinical setting.

Indexed as

Dental Impression MaterialsDental Impression TechniqueModels, DentalPolyvinylsPrinting, Three-DimensionalResins, SyntheticSiloxanesHumansIn Vitro TechniquesMaterials TestingaquasilDental Impression MaterialsImpregumPolyvinylsResins, SyntheticSiloxanesvinyl polysiloxane3D-printed traysAccuracyOpen implant impressionPeel bond strengthPolyetherPolyvinylsiloxane

Identifiers

PMID39347818
PMCPMC11442511

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.