ASSESSMENT OF THE WORKING IMPRESSIONS QUALITY IN THE MANUFACTURE OF FIXED DENTURES

Palkov T. А., Leshchuk S. Y., Leshchuk Y. S., Martynets M. Y., Luka M. M.

DENTISTRY

Scentific article

Obtaining high-quality impressions, which accurately and clearly reflect the limits of preparation in the manufacture of fixed dentures and structures remains a technically difficult stage for many dentists. If the impression does not reflect all the details of the prosthetic field, there is a high risk that the fixed denture design will not meet the required parameters of the edge fit. It also significantly increases the likelihood of clinical complications. Therefore, the purpose of our study was to assess the quality of impressions that come to the dental laboratory for the manufacture of fixed dentures. To perform this task, we used macro photography to examine 112 impressions received by the dental laboratory at the Department of Surgical and Prosthetic Dentistry FPDO and at the Dental Medical Center of Lviv National Medical University named after Danylo Halytsky. We used a three-point system proposed by MA Muradov, where 3 points corresponded to the assessment of «good», 2 points – to the assessment of «satisfactory» and 1 point – to the assessment of «unsatisfactory» so that we could assess the quality of prints. The study of working impressions revealed an absolute advantage of two-layer prints – 100%. The results of the study showed that more than half of the impressions (namely 58 of 112 (51.7%)), received in the dental laboratory could be described as «unsatisfactory»; 31.0% of prints (35 out of 112) were rated «satisfactory» and only 16.9% (19 prints) met the criteria for «good». The average score of all impressions was 1.64 points. The results of our study are a serious cause for concern. To reduce the percentage of low-quality impressions we recommend to take photos of working prints immediately after receiving them and save images in the patient’s medical history; pay more attention to the stage of obtaining an impression, while emphasizing the development of manual skills and monitoring the quality of impressions coming to dental laboratories.

impression materials, fixed prosthodontics, laboratories, quality.

1. Muradov MA, Ryakhovskiy AN, Khamzatov RM. Metodika otsenki svoystva ottiskov pri izgotovlenii nes“yemnykh ortopedicheskikh protezov v stomatologicheskoy praktike. Verkhnevolzhskiy meditsinskiy zhurnal‘chik. 2013;4:27-33. [in Russian].
2. Al-Odinee NM, Al-Hamzi M, Al-Shami IZ, Madfa АА, Al-Kholani АI, Al-Olofi YM. Evaluation of the quality of fixed prosthesis impressions in private laboratories in a sample from Yemen. BMC Oral Health. 2020;4;20(1):304. DOI: 10.1186/s12903-020-01294-1.
3. Hatzikyriakos A, Petridis HP, Tsiggos N, Sakelariou S. Considerations for services from dental technicians in fabrication of fixed prostheses: A survey of commercial dental laboratories in Thessaloniki, Greece. J Prosthet Dent. 2006;96(5):362-6. DOI: 10.1016/j.prosdent.2006.08.017.
4. Rau CT, Olafsson VG, Delgado AJ, Ritter AV, Donovan TE. The quality of fixed prosthodontic impressions: An assessment of crown and bridge impressions received at commercial laboratories/ J Am Dent Assoc. 2017;148(9):654-660. DOI: 10.1016/j.adaj.2017.04.038.
5. Muradov MA, Ryakhovskiy AN, Khamzatov GM. Otsenka kachestva otobrazheniya granits preparirovaniya rabochimi ottiskami pri nes“yemnom protezirovanii. Stomatologiya. 2013;4:50-56. [in Russian].
6. Goodacre CJ, Bernal G, Rungcharassaeng K, Kan JYK. Clinical complications in fixed prosthodontics. J Prosthet Dent 2003;90(1):31-41. DOI: 10.1016/s0022-3913(03)00214-2.
7. Moldi A, Gala V, Puranik S, Karan S, Deshpande S, Neela N. Survey of Impression Materials and Techniques in Fixed Partial Dentures among the Practitioners in India. ISRN Dent. 2013;2013:430214. DOI: 10.1155/2013/430214.
8. Brunton PA, Christensen GJ, Cheung SW, Burke FJ, Wilson NH. Contemporary dental practice in the UK: indirect restorations and fixed prosthodontics. Br Dent J. 2005;198(2):99-103. DOI: 10.1038/sj.bdj. 4811980.

«Bulletin of problems biology and medicine» Issue 1 (163), 2022 year, 241-243 pages, index UDK 616.314-089.818.1

10.29254/2077-4214-2022-1-163-241-243