Abstract

The study is aimed to evaluate the dimensional accuracy, the effect of undercut of two different configurations and the elastic recovery of addition silicone impression material assessed indirectly, by measuring the dimensions on stone models recorded from the impression of the master model, using one-step and two-step impression technique, for addition silicone impression materials. Measurements are taken to evaluate horizontal or linear and vertical dimensional changes, of the abutment V and abutment C from the stainless steel model. Heavy body/light body material is used for making one-step impression technique in a custom tray. Putty/light body is used for taking two-step technique in a stock metal tray. Improved die stone is used for pouring the impression. The different 11 locations on the dies produced by two different techniques are measured microscopically on image analyzer and compared with those of stainless steel model. Anova test was applied to test the differences of mean values of inter and intra abutment measurements, to calculate p value. Unpaired t test was applied to calculate t value. Results showed less deviation of stone models produced by one-step technique from stainless steel model, whereas the deviation of stone models produced by two-step is comparatively more. (p<0.01). This difference of deviation is significantly less in one-step as compared to two-step technique. One-step is sufficiently dimensionally accurate than two-step technique in conjunction with addition silicone impression material. They have the best elastic recovery from the two undercut configurations.

Full Text
Published version (Free)

Talk to us

Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have

Schedule a call