CLINICAL EVALUATION OF FIXED PARTIAL DENTURE IMPRESSION

N HAYAT; JU HADI; F ULLAH; . FAISAL; S FARYAL; B SIRAJ

doi:10.54112/bcsrj.v2024i1.745

Authors

N HAYAT Bachelors of Science in Dental technology, Khyber medical university IPMS, Peshawar, Pakistan
JU HADI Bachelors of Science in Dental technology, Khyber medical university IPMS, Peshawar, Pakistan
F ULLAH Bachelors of Science in Dental technology, Khyber medical university IPMS, Peshawar, Pakistan
. FAISAL Faculty of Dental Technology, Khyber medical university IPMS, Peshawar, Pakistan
S FARYAL Faculty of Dental Technology, Khyber medical university IPMS, Peshawar, Pakistan
B SIRAJ Faculty of Dental Technology, Khyber medical university IPMS, Peshawar, Pakistan

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.54112/bcsrj.v2024i1.745

Keywords:

FPD, Impression, Impression Quality, Impression Errors, Dental Laboratories

Abstract

Accurate impressions of teeth and the area to be restored are required in fixed Prosthodontics treatment for the laboratory to fabricate the desired restoration without any faults. The study aimed to raise awareness about the importance of improving individual skills to minimise impression errors, provide patients with high-quality prosthetics, and enhance their comfort. The study's objectives were to evaluate the clinically detectable errors in the impressions and to determine co-relations between possible risk factors that cause impression errors. This study follows a descriptive cross-sectional study design, which involves the probability convenience sampling technique, consisting of 150 impressions studied for the type of tray, type of material, type of technique, type of prosthesis ordered, arch of impression involved, size of tray, number of units prepared and retraction cord used. Impression errors were also assessed, including finish line errors, tears in the finish line, air bubbles, voids, and blood formed in the impression. Data were analysed with SPSS version 25.0, and correlations were found through a chi-square test. One hundred fifty impressions were analysed, with 80 being maxillary arch impressions. Most impressions utilised full arch trays (91.33%), with Monophase being the predominant technique (77%). Alginate emerged as the most commonly employed impression material (76%), and the most commonly used tray was the full arch tray (137). Crown preparations accounted for 70% of cases. Notably, retraction cord usage was observed in 58.7% of impressions. The study analysed 150 Impressions, finding 56.7% finish line errors, 21.3% tears, 19.3% bubbles, 80.7% voids, and 6% traces of blood. Our study reveals that material type, impression technique, no crown, arch of impression, prosthesis ordered, and retraction cord have a significant association (P < 0.05) with the impression errors, except tray type having no significant association (P > 0.05) with the impression errors. Based on the study's outcomes, this research identifies alginate and the monophase technique as prevalent choices among clinicians. The most common were voids and finish line errors, with tray selection showing no significant impact. The use of retraction cords notably reduces impression errors, indicating a strong association. Overall, crown impressions exhibit greater accuracy compared to bridge impressions.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

References

Al-Odinee, N. M., Al-Hamzi, M., Al-Shami, I. Z., Madfa, A., Al-Kholani, A. I., and Al-Olofi, Y. M. (2020). Evaluation of the quality of fixed prosthesis impressions in private laboratories in a sample from Yemen. BMC Oral Health 20, 1-9.

Andreescu, C. F. (2015). Assessment of impression techniques for crowns and bridges. Ann Prosthodont Restor Dent 1, 5-8.

Avhad, R., and Avhad, R. (2019). Dimensional accuracy of master casts made by one-step versus two-step putty wash addition silicone impression techniques: An in vitro study. IP Annals of Prosthodontics and Restorative Dentistry 5, 37-41.

Bishara, M., Miron, R. J., Kurtzman, G. M., Sinada, N., and Wu, D. T. (2022). A Digital Approach to Immediate-Load, Full-Arch Implant Dentistry: A Case Report. International Journal of Periodontics & Restorative Dentistry 42.

Idris, B., Houston, F., and Claffey, N. (1995). Comparison of the dimensional accuracy of one-and two-step techniques with the use of putty/wash addition silicone impression materials. The Journal of prosthetic dentistry 74, 535-541.

Kim, E.-Y., Wada, J., Sakamoto, K., Ishioka, Y., Arai, Y., Murakami, N., Yamazaki, T., Hayama, H., Utsumi, M., and Inukai, S. (2022). Effect of scanning origin location on data accuracy of abutment teeth region in digital impression acquired using intraoral scanner for removable partial denture: a preliminary in vitro study. Journal of Clinical Medicine 11, 7392.

Mahmood, R. N., Abu-Bakr, N. H., Sanhouri, N. M., and Ibrahim, Y. E. (2013). Quality of final impressions and prescriptions for fixed prosthodontics. International Journal of Prosthodontics & Restorative Dentistry 3, 87.

McCracken, M. S., Litaker, M. S., Thomson, A. E., Slootsky, A., Gilbert, G. H., and Group, N. D. P. C. (2020). Laboratory Technician Assessment of the Quality of Single‐Unit Crown Preparations and Impressions as Predictors of the Clinical Acceptability of Crowns as Determined by the Treating Dentist: Findings from the National Dental Practice‐Based Research Network. Journal of Prosthodontics 29, 114-123.

Memon, M. R., Shaikh, N., Shaikh, T., Shah, A., and Shaikh, A. G. (2019). Impression faults using irreversible hydrocolloid impression material by undergraduate and graduate students. Pakistan Oral & Dental Journal 39, 106-109.

Özcan, I., Köroğlu, A., Kale, E., Özçelik, T. B., and Yilmaz, B. (2022). Clinical evaluation of one-step impression technique and definitive casts. Balkan Journal of Dental Medicine 26, 82-87.

Papaspyridakos, P., Bordin, T. B., Kim, Y. J., El‐Rafie, K., Pagni, S. E., Natto, Z. S., Teixeira, E. R., Chochlidakis, K., and Weber, H. P. (2020). Technical complications and prosthesis survival rates with implant‐supported fixed complete dental prostheses: a retrospective study with 1‐to 12‐year follow‐up. Journal of Prosthodontics 29, 3-11.

Prosthodontics, A. o. (1999). "The glossary of prosthodontic terms," Mosby.

Raghav, D., Singh, S., Kola, M. Z., Shah, A. H., Khalil, H. S., and Kumar, P. (2014). A comparative clinical and quantitative evaluation of the efficacy of conventional and recent gingival retraction systems: An in vitro study. European Journal of Prosthodontics 2, 76.

Rau, C. T., Olafsson, V. G., Delgado, A. J., Ritter, A. V., and Donovan, T. E. (2017). The quality of fixed prosthodontic impressions: An assessment of crown and bridge impressions received at commercial laboratories. The Journal of the American Dental Association 148, 654-660.

Rubel, B. S. (2007). Impression materials: a comparative review of impression materials most commonly used in restorative dentistry. Dental Clinics of North America 51, 629-642.

Samejo, I., Shaikh, I. A., and Behroz, E. (2016). IMPRESSION TECHNIQUES AND MATERIALS USED FOR FIXED PARTIAL DENTURE FABRICATION: A SURVEY AMONG GENERAL DENTAL PRACTIONER AND SPECIALISTS IN SINDH. Pakistan Oral and Dental Journal 36, 673-673.

Samet, N., Shohat, M., Livny, A., and Weiss, E. I. (2005). A clinical evaluation of fixed partial denture impressions. The Journal of prosthetic dentistry 94, 112-117.

Subiyantoro, K., Sagir, I. P., Herwany, A., and Febrian, E. (2020). Competitive Strategy Model And Its Impact On Micro Business Unit Of Local Development Banks In Jawa. PalArch's Journal of Archaeology of Egypt/Egyptology 17, 54-69.

Varvara, G., Murmura, G., Sinjari, B., Cardelli, P., and Caputi, S. (2015). Evaluation of defects in surface detail for monophase, 2-phase, and 3-phase impression techniques: An in vitro study. The Journal of prosthetic dentistry 113, 108-113.

Zu Saifudin, A. S. A., Kamaruddin, F., and Ab Ghani, S. M. (2014). The quality of working impressions for the fabrication of fixed prosthodontics prostheses (crown and bridgework). European Journal of General Dentistry 3, 100-104.