Domna Moldovani, Sofia Diamantopoulou, Daniel Edelhoff, Efstratios Papazoglou
{"title":"Accuracy of Indirect Veneer Mock-Up in Comparison to Diagnostic Wax-Up.","authors":"Domna Moldovani, Sofia Diamantopoulou, Daniel Edelhoff, Efstratios Papazoglou","doi":"10.11607/ijp.7183","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Purpose: </strong>To evaluate the dimensional discrepancy between the diagnostic wax-up and the resulting mock-up.</p><p><strong>Material and methods: </strong>A maxillary model with misaligned teeth was scanned, and an initial cast was 3D printed. A total of 60 identical casts were 3D printed from the initial one after scanning. Based on a digital additive veneer wax-up on the six anterior teeth, 10 more casts were 3D printed. The specimens were allocated to seven groups (n = 10) as follows-group 1: transparent silicone matrix with a flowable light-cured composite resin; group 2: same as group 1 but with the addition of a prefabricated transparent tray; group 3: silicone impression putty (65 Shore A) and light-body silicone impression material with a dual-cured bisacryl resin; group 4: same as group 3 but without the light-body silicone; group 5: silicone laboratory putty (92 Shore A) with a dual-cured bisacryl resin; group 6: silicone laboratory putty (92 Shore A) with PMMA; group 7: wax-up casts (control). Scans from the mock-ups were coregistered, segmented, and superimposed with the scans from the wax-up. The difference between the mock-up and the wax-up was quantified by morphologic operations. Results were analyzed by Kruskal-Wallis test and Dunn post hoc test (P < .05).</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>All mock-ups were larger than the wax-up. Significant differences were found for every labial surface third. The incisal third was the least accurate third while the middle third the most accurate. The most accurate were groups 2 and 5, and the largest discrepancy was observed in group 6.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>The analog mock-up differs dimensionally from the wax-up, regardless of the technique/materials used.</p>","PeriodicalId":50292,"journal":{"name":"International Journal of Prosthodontics","volume":"36 4","pages":"443-450"},"PeriodicalIF":2.1000,"publicationDate":"2023-09-12","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"5","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"International Journal of Prosthodontics","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.11607/ijp.7183","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"DENTISTRY, ORAL SURGERY & MEDICINE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 5
Abstract
Purpose: To evaluate the dimensional discrepancy between the diagnostic wax-up and the resulting mock-up.
Material and methods: A maxillary model with misaligned teeth was scanned, and an initial cast was 3D printed. A total of 60 identical casts were 3D printed from the initial one after scanning. Based on a digital additive veneer wax-up on the six anterior teeth, 10 more casts were 3D printed. The specimens were allocated to seven groups (n = 10) as follows-group 1: transparent silicone matrix with a flowable light-cured composite resin; group 2: same as group 1 but with the addition of a prefabricated transparent tray; group 3: silicone impression putty (65 Shore A) and light-body silicone impression material with a dual-cured bisacryl resin; group 4: same as group 3 but without the light-body silicone; group 5: silicone laboratory putty (92 Shore A) with a dual-cured bisacryl resin; group 6: silicone laboratory putty (92 Shore A) with PMMA; group 7: wax-up casts (control). Scans from the mock-ups were coregistered, segmented, and superimposed with the scans from the wax-up. The difference between the mock-up and the wax-up was quantified by morphologic operations. Results were analyzed by Kruskal-Wallis test and Dunn post hoc test (P < .05).
Results: All mock-ups were larger than the wax-up. Significant differences were found for every labial surface third. The incisal third was the least accurate third while the middle third the most accurate. The most accurate were groups 2 and 5, and the largest discrepancy was observed in group 6.
Conclusions: The analog mock-up differs dimensionally from the wax-up, regardless of the technique/materials used.
期刊介绍:
Official Journal of the European Association for Osseointegration (EAO), the International College of Prosthodontists (ICP), the German Society of Prosthodontics and Dental Materials Science (DGPro), and the Italian Academy of Prosthetic Dentistry (AIOP)
Prosthodontics demands a clinical research emphasis on patient- and dentist-mediated concerns in the management of oral rehabilitation needs. It is about making and implementing the best clinical decisions to enhance patients'' quality of life via applied biologic architecture - a role that far exceeds that of traditional prosthetic dentistry, with its emphasis on materials and techniques. The International Journal of Prosthodontics is dedicated to exploring and developing this conceptual shift in the role of today''s prosthodontist, clinician, and educator alike. The editorial board is composed of a distinguished team of leading international scholars.