Unit:
Κατεύθυνση Προσθετική (Κλινικές Ειδικεύσεις)Βιβλιοθήκη Οδοντιατρικής
Author:
Kalantzopoulou Georgia
Supervisors info:
Κούρτης Στέφανος , Αναπληρωτής Καθηγητής, Τμήμα Οδοντιατρικής, Σχολή Επιστημών Υγείας, ΕΚΠΑ.
Πολυζώης Γρηγόρης , Καθηγητής, Τμήμα Οδοντιατρικής, Σχολή Επιστημών Υγείας, ΕΚΠΑ.
Συκαράς Νικήτας, Επίκουρος Καθηγητής, Τμήμα Οδοντιατρικής, Σχολή Επιστημών Υγείας, ΕΚΠΑ.
Original Title:
Η Χρήση Αποτυπωτικών Υλικών και Μεθόδων Αποτύπωσης για Ακίνητες Αποκαταστάσεις στη Σύγχρονη Οδοντιατρική Κλινική Πράξη
Translated title:
The use of impression materials and methods for fixed prostheses at contemporary dental clinical practice
Summary:
Purpose: The final impression of teeth and implants for fixed prosthodontics includes a variety of different techniques, materials and methods. The purpose of this survey is to determine which impression and gingival displacements techniques and materials are used by the dentists/members of the Dental Association of Piraeus, Greece. Also, to present the criteria for their choices and possible associations with their personal characteristics.
Materials and Methods: A confidential questionnaire with 23 questions was delivered via email to 1100 dentists/ members of the Dental Association of Piraeus. An informative form about the type of the survey was delivered also. The statistical analysis was performed with the statistical software Stata version 15.1 (Stata Corp, TX USA).
Results and Conclusions: A total number of 300 questionnaires were selected and delivered for the final analysis. The most frequent answers regarding the impression materials for the analog final impression of natural teeth were the addition polyvinylsiloxane (61%), the combination of polyvinylsiloxane and condensation silicone (14%) and the condensation silicone, as single choice (12%). For implant impressions, the main answers were the addition silicone (38,3%), the combination of addition silicone and polyether (15%) and the polyether alone (13%).
For teeth impression, the metal full arch trays were the most frequently used (alone at 28% and combined with others at 56%), followed by the plastic full arch trays (as single choice at 8% and combined with other types at 37%). For implant impression, on the other hand, the basic choice were the custom trays (as single choice at 23% and combined with other types at 42%), followed by the plastic full arch trays (alone at 20% and combined at 39%).
A percentage of 95% of dentists answered that they use a method for gingival displacement and the main technique preferred was the retraction cord, whether the alternative, surgical methods were preferred by a small number of respondents. For the majority of dentists, the use of retraction cord was combined with an hemostatic agent, with the 22% of respondents answering that they choose it at every clinical case.
The use of digital impression was statistically important more frequent at the age group of 30- 40, while no differences were found between men and women.
A statistically important correlation was found between the use of custom tray and continuous education, for final impression of both natural teeth and implants.
Finally, the double stage technique was found to be more popular as the years of practicing were increased, whether the opposite was found with the single stage technique of impression.
Main subject category:
Health Sciences
Keywords:
Impression, Materials, Impression Trays, Gingival Displacement Techniques, Digital Impression
Number of references:
206
