Abstract
The space available for impression material in gingival sulcus immediately after the removal of retraction cord has been found to be 0.3–0.4 mm. However after 40 s only 0.2 mm of the retracted space is available. This is of concern when impression of multiple abutments is to be made. Hence a study was planned to determine the minimum width of the retracted sulcus necessary to obtain a good impression. Five metal dies were machined to accurately fit a stainless steel block with a square cavity in the center with spaces, 1 mm deep and of varying widths (0.11–0.3 mm) away from the block. Polyvinyl siloxane impressions were made and poured using a high strength stone. Using traveling microscope, length and widths of abutment, impression and die were measured and compared for linear accuracy and completeness of impression. Results showed 1.5–3 times greater mean distortion and larger coefficient of variance in the 0.11 mm group than in the wider sulcular groups. ANOVA test for distortion also showed statistically significant differences (P < 0.05). 75 % of impressions in 0.11 mm group were defective compared to less than 25 % of impressions in other width groups. It is not always possible to predictably obtain accurate impressions in sulcus width of 0.11 mm or lesser. Dimensionally accurate and defect free impressions were obtained in sulcus width of 0.15 mm and wider. Hence clinicians must choose retraction methods to obtain a width greater than 0.35 mm. Further immediate loading of the impression material after cord removal may improve accuracy.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Baharav H, Laufer BZ, Langer Y, Cardash HS (1997) The effect of displacement time on gingival crevice width. Int J Prosthodont 10:248–253
Shillingburg jr,Hobo S,Whitsett LD,Jacobi R, Brackett SE (1997) Fluid control and soft tissue management. In: Fundamentals of fixed prosthodontics, 3rd edn. Quintessence, Chicago, pp 257–279
Laufer BZ, Baharav H, Cardash HS (1994) The linear accuracy of impressions and stone dies as affected by the thickness of the impression margin. Int J Prosthodont 7:247–252
Laufer BZ, Baharav H, Langer Y, Cardash HS (1997) The closure of the gingival crevice following gingival retraction for impression making. J Oral Rehabil 24:629–635
Millar B (2001) How to make a good impression (crown and bridge). Br Dent J 191:402–405
Craig RG (1989) Restorative dental materials, 8th edn. Mosby, St Louis, pp 293–342
Harrison JD (1979) Prevention of failures in making impressions and dies. Dent Clin North Am 23:13–20
Hung SH, Purk JH, Tira DE, Eick JD (1992) Accuracy of one step versus two step putty wash addition silicon impression technique. J Prosthet Dent 67:583–589
Laufer BZ, Baharav H, Ganor Y, Cardash HS (1996) The effect of marginal thickness on the distortion of different impression materials. J Prosthet Dent 76:466–471
Baharav H, Kupershmidt I, Laufer BZ, Cardash HS (2004) The effect of sulcular width on the linear accuracy of impression material in the presence of an undercut. Int J Prosthodont 17:585–589
Schierano G, Bassi F, Bresciano ME, Carossa S (2000) Comparison of marginal fit of 3 different metal-ceramic systems: An in vitro study. Int J Prosthodont 13:405–408
Besimo C, Jeger C, Guggenheim R (1997) Marginal adaptation of titanium frameworks produced by CAD/CAM techniques. Int J Prosthodont 10:541–546
Tinschert J, Natt G, Mautsch W, Spiekermann H, Anusavice KJ (2001) Marginal fit of alumina and zirconia based fixed partial dentures produced by a CAD/CAM system. Oper Dent 26:367–374
Council on Dental Materials and Devices (1977) Revised American dental association specification no. 19 for non-aqueous elastomeric dental impression material. J Am Dent Assoc 94:733–741
Hondrum SO (1994) Tear and energy properties of three impression materials. Int J Prosthodont 7:517–521
Hansson O, Eklund J (1988) Impression for prosthodontic restorations reproducing narrow spaces and severe undercuts. Acta Odontol Scand 46:199–206
Lacy AM, Fukui H, Bellman T, Jendresen MD (1981) Time-dependent accuracy of elastomeric impression materials. Part II: polyether, polysulfides, and polyvinyl siloxane. J Prosthet Dent 45:329–333
Pratten DH, Novetsky M (1991) Detail reproduction of soft-tissue—a comparison of impression materials. J Prosthet Dent 65:188–191
Aimjirakul P, Masuda T, Takahashi H, Miura H (2003) Gingival sulcus simulation model for evaluating the penetration characteristics of elastomeric impression materials. Int J Prosthodont 16:385–389
Marshak BL, Cardash HS, Ben-ur Z (1987) Incidence of impression material found in the gingival sulcus after impression procedure for fixed partial dentures. J Prosthet Dent 57:306–308
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Naveen, Y.G., Patil, R. Effect of the Impression Margin Thickness on the Linear Accuracy of Impression and Stone Dies: An In Vitro Study. J Indian Prosthodont Soc 13, 13–18 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1007/s13191-012-0160-7
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s13191-012-0160-7