Abstract
One of the most predominant challenges in oral rehabilitation is to predict the functional and aesthetic results of dental restorations. The success of the treatment depends on the correct execution of the different clinical and technical procedures performed at the dental laboratory. One of the fundamental steps is the final impression to obtain a precise replica of the cervical termination line. The correct diagnosis for the approach regarding the gingival tissues, the fidelity of the dental impression, and the shaving of the gingival margins in the working model will allow the establishment of a complete protocol for the diagnosis, planning, and execution of the treatment, potentiating more predictable results in the different clinical cases. The aim of this case report was to propose an alternative technique for undergraduate students regarding the shaving procedure of the working dies, obtaining an improved fitting in the marginal adaptation of the prosthetic parts performed at the laboratory.
References
Chee W.W.L., Donavan T.E: Polyvinylsiloxane impression materials: a review of properties and techniques. J Prosthet Dent 1992; 68:728-32.
Pamela Hayde Galarreta Arturo Kobayashi Shinya. Estudio comparativo de la exactitud dimensional de tres materiales de impresión elastoméricos utilizados con y sin aplicación adhesivos en prótesis fija. Revista Estomatol Herediana 2007; 17 (1): 5-10.
Eames W.B., Wallace S.W., Suway N.B., Rogers L.B. Accuracy and dimensional stability of elastomeric impresión mterials. J Prosthet Dent 1979; 42: 159-162.
Hamalian T.A., Nasr E., Chidiac J.J. Impression Materials in Fixed Prosthodontics: Influence of Choice on Clinical Procedure. J Prosthod 2011; 20: 153-60.
Bennani V., Schwass D., Chandler N. Gingival retraction techniques for implants versus teeth Current status. J Am Dent Assoc 2008; 139: 1354-63.
Covo, L. M., Ziebert, G. J., Balthazar, Y., & Christensen, L. V. Accuracy and comparative stability of three removable die systems. J Prosthet Dent (1988); 59 (3): 314-318.
Naylor W.P. Infection control in fixed prosthodontic. Dent Clinic North Am 1992; 36: 809-831.
Johnson G.H. Craig R.G. Accuracy of four types of rubber impression materials compared with time of pour and a repeat pour of models. J Prosthetic Dent 1985; 53: 484-490.
Tjan A.H.L., Whang S.B., Tjan A.H., Sarkissian R. Clinically oriented evaluation of the accuracy of commonly used impression materials. J Prosthet Dent 1986; 56: 4-8.
McCormick J.T., Antony S.J., Dial M.L., Duncanson M.G., Shillingburg H.T..Wettability of elastomeric impression materials: Effect of selected surfactants. Int j Prosthodontic 1989; 2: 413-420.
Cullen D.R., Mikessell J.W., Sandrik J.L., Wettability of elastomeric impression materials and voids in gypsum cast. J Prosthet Dent 1991; 66: 261-265.
Miranda F.J., Dilts W.E., Duncanson M.G., Collard E.W. Comparative stability of two removable die systems. J Prosthet Dent 1976; 36: 326-333.
Cowan R.D., Sanchez R.A., Chapeel R.P., Glaros A.G., Hayden W.J. Verifying the reliability of interchanging cast with semiajustable articulator. Int J Prosthodontic 1991; 4: 258-64.
Gregor L., Bouillaguet S., Onisor I., Ardu S., Krejci I., Rocca G.T. Microhardness of light-and dual-polymerizable luting resins polymerized through 7.5mm-thick endocrowns. J Prosthet Dent 2014; 112: 942-948.
Gresnigt M. M. M., Cune M. S., de Roos J. G., Ozcan M. Effect of immediate and delayed dentin sealing on the fracture strength, failure type and Weibull characteristics of lithium disilicate laminate veneers. Dent Mater 2016; 32: e73-81.
Molin M. K., Karlsson S. L., Kristiaensen M. S. Influence of film thickness on joint bend strength of a ceramic/resin composite joint. Dent Mater 1996; 12: 245-249.
Comments
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.
Copyright (c) 2022 CC-BY-NC-SA 4.0