Custom Trays (custom + tray)

Distribution by Scientific Domains


Selected Abstracts


Dentist Communication with the Dental Laboratory for Prosthodontic Treatment Using Implants

JOURNAL OF PROSTHODONTICS, Issue 3 2006
Zahra Afsharzand DMD
Purpose: A questionnaire was sent to U.S. dental laboratories to evaluate the level of communication between dentists and laboratory technicians and to determine trends in procedures and materials used in fixed and removable implant restorations. Methods and Materials: Dental laboratories were randomly chosen from the National Association of Dental Laboratories for each of the 50 states. The questionnaire was mailed to the laboratory directors for 199 dental laboratories. One hundred fourteen dental laboratories returned the survey, yielding a response rate of 57%. Of those laboratories, 37 indicated that they did not participate in the fabrication of fixed implant restorations, yielding a response rate of 39%. Forty-two dental laboratories indicated that they did not participate in the fabrication of implant-retained overdenture prostheses, yielding a response rate of 36%. Results: Results from this survey show inadequate communication by dentists in completing work authorization forms. Custom trays are used more frequently for implant-retained overdenture impressions and stock trays for impressions of fixed implant prostheses. Poly(vinyl siloxane) is the material most commonly used for both fixed and removable implant-supported prostheses. Two implants with stud attachments are used more widely than those with bar attachments for implant-retained overdentures. Conclusions: Most laboratories working on implant prosthodontic cases report inadequate communication between the laboratory and dentists related to materials and techniques used in fabrication of implant restorations. [source]


Pressure generated on a simulated oral analog by impression materials in custom trays of different designs

JOURNAL OF PROSTHODONTICS, Issue 3 2002
Radi Masri BDS
Purpose To measure the pressure exerted by maxillary edentulous impressions composed of 3 commonly used impression materials using four different impression tray configurations. Materials and Methods The study was performed using an oral analog that simulated an edentulous maxillary arch. Three pressure transducers were imbedded in the oral analog, 1 in the mid-palate area and the other 2 in the right and left ridge (maxillary first premolar areas). Custom trays of 4 different configurations were fabricated. The 3 impression materials tested were irreversible hydrocolloid, light-body and medium-body vinyl polysiloxane, and polysulfide. A total of 128 impressions were made. The custom tray and the oral analog were mounted using a reline jig. A Satec universal testing machine was used to apply a constant pressure of 2 kg/cm2 over a period of 5 minutes on the loaded custom tray. The pressure was recorded every 10 seconds. Factorial analysis of variance and Tukey's multiple comparison test were used to analyze the results. Results A significant difference in the pressure produced using different impression materials was found (p,0.001). Irreversible hydrocolloid and medium-body vinyl polysiloxane produced a significantly higher pressure than light-body vinyl polysiloxane and polysulfide impression materials. The presence of holes and/or relief did not significantly alter the magnitude of pressure. Conclusions All impression materials produced pressure during maxillary edentulous impression making. Tray modification was not important in changing the amount of pressure produced. The impression materials used had more effect on the pressure produced during impression making on the simulated oral analog. [source]


Impression pressures against teeth in a partially edentulous model with a mobile tooth: influence of impression tray design

JOURNAL OF ORAL REHABILITATION, Issue 5 2000
Y. Nishi
The purpose of the present study was to examine the effect of custom tray designs on local pressures against teeth during the impression procedure. In a previous study, a partially edentulous simulation model with a mobile tooth was used, and the effect of custom tray designs on the displacement of the mobile tooth was examined during the impression procedure. Based on that study's results, we have assumed that the differences in impression pressures between the labial and the lingual sides of a mobile tooth could either cause or affect displacement. The present study was undertaken to determine the local impression pressures against each side of three anterior teeth, including one mobile tooth, using the same simulation model and the same custom trays as in the previous study. It was found that the local pressures exerted against teeth during the impression procedure were affected by the custom tray designs and varied according to the coronal shape, axis inclination and location of the teeth. [source]


Pressure generated on a simulated oral analog by impression materials in custom trays of different designs

JOURNAL OF PROSTHODONTICS, Issue 3 2002
Radi Masri BDS
Purpose To measure the pressure exerted by maxillary edentulous impressions composed of 3 commonly used impression materials using four different impression tray configurations. Materials and Methods The study was performed using an oral analog that simulated an edentulous maxillary arch. Three pressure transducers were imbedded in the oral analog, 1 in the mid-palate area and the other 2 in the right and left ridge (maxillary first premolar areas). Custom trays of 4 different configurations were fabricated. The 3 impression materials tested were irreversible hydrocolloid, light-body and medium-body vinyl polysiloxane, and polysulfide. A total of 128 impressions were made. The custom tray and the oral analog were mounted using a reline jig. A Satec universal testing machine was used to apply a constant pressure of 2 kg/cm2 over a period of 5 minutes on the loaded custom tray. The pressure was recorded every 10 seconds. Factorial analysis of variance and Tukey's multiple comparison test were used to analyze the results. Results A significant difference in the pressure produced using different impression materials was found (p,0.001). Irreversible hydrocolloid and medium-body vinyl polysiloxane produced a significantly higher pressure than light-body vinyl polysiloxane and polysulfide impression materials. The presence of holes and/or relief did not significantly alter the magnitude of pressure. Conclusions All impression materials produced pressure during maxillary edentulous impression making. Tray modification was not important in changing the amount of pressure produced. The impression materials used had more effect on the pressure produced during impression making on the simulated oral analog. [source]