Evaluation of the quality of fixed prosthesis impressions in private laboratories in a sample from Yemen
- PDF / 986,842 Bytes
- 9 Pages / 595.276 x 790.866 pts Page_size
- 38 Downloads / 193 Views
SEARCH ARTICLE
Open Access
Evaluation of the quality of fixed prosthesis impressions in private laboratories in a sample from Yemen Nusaiba M. Al‑Odinee1*, Mohsen Al‑Hamzi1,2,3, Ibrahim Z. Al‑shami1, Ahmed Madfa4, Abdulwahab I. Al‑Kholani1 and Yazeed M. Al‑Olofi1
Abstract Background: Fixed prosthodontics require an accurate impression for the teeth and the area to be restored for the laboratory to fabricate the desired restoration without mistakes. This study evaluated the quality of impressions received by private laboratories for the fabrication of fixed prosthesis by describing the frequency of clinically detect‑ able errors and by analyzing association between the various factors involved. Methods: 165 impressions were collected from four dental laboratories. Jaw involved, type of tray, size of tray, num‑ ber of prepared units, type of impression materials, techniques and viscosity in case of elastomeric impressions and type of prosthesis requested were recorded. Data referring to errors and visible defects including errors in finish line, in preparation area, in silicone impression technique and blood in impression were also documented. Factors affecting errors present were also assessed. Association between dentist gender and experience years and impression errors was assessed. Chi square and Fisher exact tests used to examine the association between categorical variables and outcomes. Results: The total of error considering not immediately pouring as an error. Alginate was the most impression used. of impressions evaluated (50.9%), 97% were have at least one visible error; 92.1% had errors in finish line, 53.9% had errors in preparation area and (72.8%) of elastomeric impressions were have at least one error in technique. Blood in impression was detected in 52.1% of impressions. Significant association was found between material type and errors in finishing line and preparation area. Significant relationships were found between gender and errors in silicone impression technique (p 10 years) and the dentist gender was categorized to male and female. Working location either private or government clinic was also recorded. The analysis of the data was performed using SPSS 21.0 for Windows (SPSS Inc., Chicago, IL, USA). Descriptive analysis and frequency tables were used to present data. A chi-square and Fisher exact tests were conducted to examine the association between categorical variables and outcomes.
Results The total of error considering not immediately pouring as an error. Of the 165 impressions evaluated, 105 (63.6%) were maxillary impressions and 60 (36.4%) were mandibular impressions. Plastic stock trays were 152 (92.1%) and the metal stock tray was 13 (7.9%). Full arch trays were 164 (99.4%). The distribution of impression materials was 84 (50.9%) alginate, 47 (28.5%) condensation silicone and 34 (20.6%) addition silicone. Of the 165 impressions, 65 (39.4%) contained four or more prepared abutments, 45 (27.3%) contained two prepared abutments, 38 (23%) contained 1 abutment and 17 (10.3%) conta
Data Loading...
