A Comparative Evaluation of Accuracy of the Dies Affected by Tray Type, Material Viscosity, and Pouring Sequence of Dual and Single Arch Impressions- An In vitro Study

• Main Authors: Poonam R. Kulkarni, Rahul S. Kulkarni, Rupal J. Shah, Rahul Chhajlani, Bhuwan Saklecha, Kavita Maru
• Format: Article
• Language: English
• Published: JCDR Research and Publications Private Limited 2017-04-01
• Series: Journal of Clinical and Diagnostic Research
• Subjects: metal and plastic dual arch trays; stainless steel standard crown; stock metal full arch trays
• Online Access: https://jcdr.net/articles/PDF/9756/24292_CE[Ra1]_F(RK)_PF1_PFA(SS)_PF2(P_NESY).pdf

Introduction: The clinician’s skill, impression techniques, and materials play a very important role in recording fine details in an impression for accuracy of fixed partial denture prosthesis. Impression of prepared teeth and of the opposing arch can be recorded simultaneously by dual-arch trays, while the full arch metal trays are used for impressions of prepared teeth in one arch. Aim: To measure and compare the accuracy of working dies made from impressions with metal and plastic dual arch trays and metal full arch trays, for two viscosities of impression material and by changing the sequence of pour of working and non-working sides. Materials and Methods: A balanced design with independent samples was used to study the three variables (tray type, impression material viscosity, and pouring sequence). An impression made by dual arch trays and single arch trays were divided in to three groups (Group A-plastic dual arch tray, Group B-metal dual arch tray, Group C-full arch metal stock tray). Out of these three groups, two groups (Group A and B) were subdivided in to four subgroups each and one group (Group C) was subdivided in to two subgroups. A sample size of 30 was used in each subgroup yielding a total 300 impressions in three groups or ten subgroups. Impressions were made of a machined circular stainless steel die. All three dimensions (Occlusogingival, Mesiodistal, and Buccolingual) of the working dies as well as stainless steel standard die were measured three times, and the mean was used for the three standard sample values to which all working dies means were compared. Statistical analysis used for this study was a 3-factor analysis of variance with hypothesis testing at α =0.05. Results: With respect to the selection of impression material viscosity statistically significant differences were found in the dies for the buccolingual and mesiodistal dimensions. Metal dual arch trays were slightly more accurate in the mesiodistal dimension in comparison to the plastic trays in reference of tray selection and in view of pouring sequence no differences were observed in occlusogingival dimension but in buccolingual and mesiodistal dimensions nonworking side was more accurate. Conclusion: The gypsum dies produced from the dual arch impressions were generally smaller in all three dimensions than the stainless steel standard die. Plastic dual-arch trays were more accurate with rigid impression material and there was not statistically significant difference for sequence of pouring. Metal dual-arch trays were more accurate with monophase impression material and working side was more accurate. Stock metal full arch trays were more accurate for monophase impression material.