Digital technologies are gradually gaining ground in dentistry. In particular, taking impressions with intraoral scanners is becoming routine; however, even this must often be preceded by the use of retraction cords. This article presents an innovative technique to record digital impressions of natural tooth abutments using interim restorations relined with impression material instead of retraction cords. In the laboratory, using computer-aided design, the technician can segment the internal surface of the interim restoration and use it to replace the abutment of the intraoral scan, thus obtaining an accurate coping that yields more detailed information about the supragingival and intrasulcular surface of the preparation.

Objectives: Some small defects may remain in the impression after making a two-step putty-light body impression. The aim of this study was to evaluate and compare the dimensional accuracy of 2-step and relined 2-step (3-step) putty-light body impressions. Materials and Methods: In this in vitro study, 30 impressions were made with putty, light body, and extra-light body addition silicone materials using the 2-step and 3-step impression techniques (N=15). An epoxy resin master model was made duplicating a maxillary typodont with left first premolar and first molar teeth prepared with a shoulder finish line and truncated pyramidal-shaped indices in the mid-palate and third molar sites. In addition to creating a reference digital model by scanning the master model, 30 master casts were scanned to produce digital models. The anteroposterior (AP) and cross-sectional (CS) dimensional accuracy of the models were compared with the master model using linear measurements. Moreover, tooth size measurements were made and compared using the root mean square (RMS). Two-sample t-test was applied to analyze the data (α=0.05). Results: The mean AP and RMS differences between the two study groups were not significant (P>0.05). However, the CS difference between the two groups was significant (P<0.001), and the 3-step impression technique showed smaller discrepancies in comparison to the master model. Conclusion: There was no significant difference in accuracy of the two techniques for single-unit and multiple-unit preparations. The 3-step impression technique had a higher CS dimensional accuracy.

BACKGROUND: Vinyl polyether silicone (VPES) is a novel impression biomaterial made of a combination of vinyl polysiloxane (VPS) and polyether (PE). Thus, it is significant to assess its properties and behaviour under varied disinfectant test conditions. This study aimed to assess the dimensional stability of novel VPES impression material after immersion in standard disinfectants for different time intervals.
METHODS: Elastomeric impression material used -medium body regular set (Monophase) [Exa\'lence GC America]. A total of 84 Specimens were fabricated using stainless steel die and ring (ADA specification 19). These samples were distributed into a control group (n=12) and a test group (n=72). The test group was divided into 3 groups, based on the type of disinfectant used - Group-A- 2% Glutaraldehyde, Group-B- 0. 5% Sodium hypochlorite and Group-C- 2% Chlorhexidine each test group was further divided into 2 subgroups (n=12/subgroup) based on time intervals for which each sample was immersed in the disinfectants - subgroup-1- 10 mins and Subgroup 2- 30 mins. After the impression material was set, it was removed from the ring and then it was washed in water for 15 seconds. Control group measurements were made immediately on a stereomicroscope and other samples were immersed in the three disinfection solutions for 10 mins and 30 mins to check the dimensional stability by measuring the distance between the lines generated by the stainless steel die on the samples using a stereomicroscope at x40 magnification.
RESULTS: The distance measured in the control group was 4397.2078 µm and 4396.1571 µm; for the test group Group-A- 2% Glutaraldehyde was 4396.4075 µm and 4394.5992 µm; Group-B- 0. 5% Sodium hypochlorite was 4394.5453 µm and 4389.4711 µm Group-C- 2% Chlorhexidine was 4395.2953 µm and 4387.1703 µm respectively for 10 mins and 30 mins. Percentage dimensional change was in the range of 0.02 - 0.25 for all the groups for 10 mins and 30 mins.
CONCLUSIONS: 2 % Glutaraldehyde is the most suitable disinfectant for VPES elastomeric impression material in terms of dimensional stability and shows minimum dimensional changes as compared to that of 2% Chlorhexidine and 0.5% Sodium hypochlorite.

BACKGROUND: 3D printing technology is replacing manual fabrication in all fields. 3D-printed impression trays should be assessed as they could replace conventional impression trays in the future.
OBJECTIVE: In-vitro comparison and evaluation of the dimensional stability and retention strength of impressions to custom impression trays fabricated using conventional method and additive technology.
METHODS: A maxillary edentulous auto-polymerizing acrylic resin model served as the master model. Two moulds were prepared from the master model in order to obtain 12 casts. One cast was scanned for 3D printing digital light processing (DLP) and fused deposition modelling (FDM) 24 impression trays using polylactic acid (PLA). Twelve casts were used to fabricate light cure impression trays. Polyvinyl-siloxane impressions were made on the master model using 36 impression trays and 18 trays each were used to assess dimensional stability and retention strength.
RESULTS: In dimensional stability analysis, one sample t-test revealed a statistically significant difference between each group and the master model followed by a one-way ANOVA. There were significant differences, but the difference was less with FDM trays (P < 0.05). In retention strength analysis, one-way Analysis of variance (ANOVA) revealed statistically significant difference between each group and post-hoc test revealed specific difference, the highest with FDM trays (P < 0.05).
CONCLUSIONS: Dimensional changes were observed at 30 minutes and 72 hours. Lesser dimensional changes were observed when impressions were made using FDM trays followed by DLP and light cure trays. The mean retention strength seen in descending order was FDM, followed by DLP and light cure trays. The best retention strength was noticed when impressions were made using FDM trays.

This in vitro study compared the accuracy of conventional versus digital impression techniques for angulated and straight implants using two different impression coping and scan body designs.
Two implant systems were used: Straumann and Dentegris. Two implants were placed for each system, straight and angulated at 15 degrees mesiodistally. Conventional impressions were made using the splinted open-tray technique using narrow impression coping (NIC) and wide impression coping (WIC). The stone casts produced from the conventional impression were digitized with a lab scanner (3Shape D2000). Digital impressions were made using four intraoral scanners (IOS): 3Shape Trios 3, Medit i700, Cerec Omnicam, and Emerald Planmeca using short scanbodies (SSB) and long scanbodies (LSB). The scanning was repeated ten times to generate the Standard Tessellation Language (STL) files. The distance and angle deviations between impression copings and scanbodies were measured in reference to the master model.
The trueness and precision of SSB and WIC were significantly better than LSB and NIC (p<0.001). The range trueness of the platform deviation was better with SSB (37.1 to 51.9) than LSB (89.6 to 127.9 μm) and for WIC than NIC in conventional impressions (58.2 and 75.1 μm, respectively). The trueness of the angle deviation of digital scans with SSB (0.11 to 0.25 degrees) was significantly better than scans with LSB (0.31 to 0.57 degrees) and for WIC than NIC (0.21 and 0.52 degrees, respectively). The precision of the platform deviation of digital scans with SSB (12.4 to 34.5 μm) was higher than other scans and conventional impressions (42.9 to 71.4 μm). The precision of the angle deviation of Medit i700 and Trios 3 with SSB (0.17 and 0.20 degrees, respectively) was higher than other scans with SSB and conventional impressions (0.54 to 1.63 degrees).
Digital scans with SSB were more accurate than conventional splinted open-tray impressions. The type of impression coping and scanbody significantly affected the impression accuracy.
The use of a short scanbody can increase the accuracy of digital impressions, and wide impression coping can increase the accuracy of conventional impressions, resulting in improved clinical outcomes.

OBJECTIVE: To compare the trueness of maxillomandibular relationship between articulated 3D-printed and conventional diagnostic casts in maximum intercuspation (MIP).
METHODS: Reference casts were articulated in MIP, and scanned using a Coordinate Measurement Machine (CMM, n = 1). Digital scans were made from the reference casts by using an intraoral scanner (IOS, n = 10) (Trios 4; 3Shape A/S). IOS scans were processed to create 3D-printed casts by using MAX UV385 (Asiga) and NextDent 5100 (3DSystems) 3D-printers. The conventional workflow implemented vinylpolysiloxane (VPS) impressions and Type IV stone. Stone and 3D-printed casts were articulated and digitized with a laboratory scanner (E4; 3Shape A/S). The 3D-printed casts were scanned on two occasions: with and without positioning pins. Inter-arch distances and 3D-contact area were measured and compared. Statistical tests used were Shapiro-Wilk, Levene\'s, Welch\'s t-test, and 2-way ANOVA (α=0.05).
RESULTS: IOS group showed similar or better maxillomandibular relationship trueness than stone casts and 3D-printed casts (p < 0.05). 3D-contact area analysis showed similar deviations between 3D-printed and stone casts (p > 0.05). The choice of 3D-printer and presence of positioning pins on the casts significantly influenced maxillomandibular relationship trueness (p < 0.05).
CONCLUSIONS: Articulated 3D-printed and stone casts exhibited similar maxillomandibular relationship trueness.
CONCLUSIONS: Although 3D-printing methods can introduce a considerable amount of deviations, the maxillomandibular relationship trueness of articulated 3D-printed and stone casts in MIP can be considered similar.

To evaluate the positional accuracy of implant analogs in biobased model resin by comparing them to that of implant analogs in model resin casts and conventional analogs in dental stone casts.
Polyvinylsiloxane impressions of a partially edentulous mandibular model with a single implant were made and poured in type IV dental stone. The same model was also digitized with an intraoral scanner and additively manufactured implant casts were fabricated in biobased model resin (FotoDent biobased model) and model resin (FotoDent model 2 beige-opaque) (n = 8). All casts and the model were digitized with a laboratory scanner, and the scan files were imported into a 3-dimensional analysis software (Geomagic Control X). The linear deviations of 2 standardized points on the scan body used during digitization were automatically calculated on x-, y-, and z-axes. Average deviations were used to define precision, and 1-way analysis of variance and Tukey HSD tests were used for statistical analyses (α = 0.05).
Biobased model resin led to higher deviations than dental stone (all axes, P ≤ 0.031) and model resin (y-axis, P = 0.015). Biobased model resin resulted in the lowest precision of implant analog position (P ≤ 0.049). The difference in the positional accuracy of implant analogs of model resin and stone casts was nonsignificant (P ≥ 0.196).
Implant analogs in biobased model resin casts mostly had lower positional accuracy, whereas those in model resin and stone casts had similar positional accuracy. Regardless of the material, analogs deviated more towards mesial, while buccal deviations in additively manufactured casts and lingual deviations in stone casts were more prominent.

BACKGROUND: The purpose of this in vitro study was to evaluate the dimensional accuracy, trueness, and precision of vinyl siloxane ether (VSXE) and polyvinylsiloxane (PVS) impression materials using different impression techniques.
METHODS: A three-dimensional (3D) printed mandibular model with implants and metal rods served as the reference model. Impressions were taken in custom trays, resulting in four groups: PVS-closed-tray, VSXE-closed-tray, PVS-open-tray, and VSXE-open-tray. The reference model and impressions were scanned and analyzed using 3D analysis software to assess the trueness and precision within each group.
RESULTS: There was significant difference in trueness between the groups, with PVS closed tray showing a higher deviation than VSXE-closed-tray and PVS-open-tray. VSXE-open-tray had the lowest deviation, which was statistically significant. In terms of precision, PVS-closed-tray showed the highest deviation, while no significant differences were found among the other groups.
CONCLUSIONS: VSXE impression material with an open tray technique consistently demonstrated the highest levels of accuracy and precision. Conversely, PVS impression material with a closed tray technique yielded less favorable results.
CONCLUSIONS: Better understanding of trueness and precision of new impression materials with new impression techniques will increase their clinical effectiveness.

OBJECTIVE: (1) To compare the temperature rise in the pulp chamber with different resin materials used for making provisional fixed partial dentures in anterior and posterior region while using Polyvinylsiloxane impression materials as matrix. (2) To identify a superior provisionalization material based on the amount of heat dissipated suitable for anterior and posterior provisional fixed partial denture fabrication.
METHODS: Temporary crowns and bridges are integral to Fixed Prosthodontics. It has been observed that conventional fixed prosthesis temporisation materials release heat due to the exothermic polymerisation reaction. When such a provisional material is directly let to set on a vital tooth, the heat transfer causes irreversible changes in the pulp tissue depending of the degree of change. Hence, this study observes amount of heat generation in various materials during temporisation procedure, by simulating similar conditions.
METHODS: Two Models were fabricated, one simulating missing lateral incisor (Model A) and another simulating missing first molar (Model B). Intact maxillary central incisors and canine for Model A and intact mandibular Second Premolar and Second Molar were selected to act as abutments. These abutment teeth were fitted with the tip of a K-type Thermocouple inside their pulp chambers and these were connected to a digital thermometer. Five temporisation materials were chosen for fabrication of temporary crowns through Direct technique. (1) polymethy methacrylate (Self Cure acrylic), (2) bisacryl composite (Protemp 4), (3) visible light cure urethane dimethacrylate (Revotec LC), (4) barium glass and fumed silica infused methacrylate (Dentsply Integrity) and (5)nano-hybrid composite (VOCO Structur 3). Ten observations were made for each provisional material on each model. During each observation, temperature rise was recorded at 30s interval from the time of application, through the peak and till a decrease in temperature is observed. Polyvinyl siloxane was used as matrix for all except light cure resin, where polypropylene sheet was used.
METHODS: Anova test used for statistical.
RESULTS: ANOVA test revealed that there was a significant difference in the temperature changes associated with the provisional restorative materials used. Among the five, polymethy methacrylate (self cure resin) showed the maximum rise in temperature, followed by bisacryl composite (Protemp 4), visible light cure urethane dimethacrylate (Revotec LC), barium glass and fumed silica infused methacrylate (Dentsply Integrity) and nano-hybrid composite (VOCO Structur 3). There was no comparable difference between Model A and B but an overall reduction of temperature rise was observed in model B.
CONCLUSIONS: VOCO Structur 3 showed the least temperature rise in the pulp chamber, and overall temperature rise was less for model B which can be attributed to the residual dentin thickness.

To assess the impact of including the palate and the number of images recorded during intraoral digital scanning procedure on the accuracy of complete arch scans.
An experienced operator conducted 40 digital scans of a 3D printed maxillary model and divided them into two groups: 20 with inclusion of the palate (PAL) and 20 without (NPAL). Each set of scans was performed using an intraoral scanner (IOS) (Trios 5; 3Shape A/S; Copenhagen, Denmark). The resulting STL files were imported into the Geomagic Control X software (3D Systems, Rock Hill, SC, USA) for accuracy comparison. A reference STL file was created using a 3Shape E3 laboratory scanner (3Shape Scanlt Dental 2.2.1.0; Copenhagen, Denmark). The number of images captured was recorded during the scanning procedure.
In the case of the right side no statistically significant difference in trueness was detected (84 µm ± 45.6 for PAL and 80.4 ± 40.4 µm for NPAL). In the case of the left side no significant difference in trueness was observed (215.1 ± 70.2 µm for PAL and 233.9 ± 70.7 µm for NPAL). In the case of the arch distortion a statistically significant difference in trueness was seen between the two types of scans (135.3 ± 71.9 µm for PAL and 380.4 ± 255.1 µm for NPAL). The average number of images was 831.25, and 593.8 for PAL and NPAL, respectively.
Scanning of the palatal area can significantly improve the accuracy of dental scans in cases of complete arches. In terms of the number of images, based on the current results, obvious conclusions could not be drawn, and further investigation is required.
Scanning the palate may be beneficial for improving the accuracy of intraoral scans in dentate patients. Consequently, this should be linked to an appropriate scanning strategy that predicts palatal scanning.