J Adv Prosthodont.  2010 Mar;2(1):1-3. 10.4047/jap.2010.2.1.1.

Alternative impression technique for multiple abutments in difficult case to control

• Jung BY
• Lee KW

• KMID: 1975169
• DOI: http://doi.org/10.4047/jap.2010.2.1.1

Abstract

BACKGROUND
Even though excellent impression materials are now available for making accurate replication for hard and soft tissue, the numerous dentists have faced lots of obstacles in making simultaneous impressions of multiple abutments. CASE DESCRIPTION: This article describes a modified method of tray fabrication using auto-polymerizing acrylic resin and impression technique for multiple prepared teeth in cases with limitations and difficulties in taking dental impressions. CLINICAL IMPLICATION: This segmental tray technique has several advantages, including higher impression quality, fewer impressions, and being more comfortable for the patient and less stressful for the clinician.

Keyword

Segmental tray; Multiple abutments; Full arch impression; Dimensional stability

MeSH Terms

Dentists
Humans
Tooth

Figure

• 

  Fig. 1 View of a model requiring impression of multiple prepared teeth.

• 

  Fig. 2 Two segmental trays for both posterior teeth were positioned. Each of them had a buccal wing for a snap removal.

• 

  Fig. 3 Wax spacer for impression material was covered over the segmental trays and remaining teeth.

• 

  Fig. 4 Lateral view of overall trays. Note an indentation around the wing.

• 

  Fig. 5 Occlusal view of completed segmental trays and an overlay tray.

• 

  Fig. 6 View of an overall impression of another patient.

Reference

1. Cura C, Cotert HS, User A. Fabrication of a sectional impression tray and sectional complete denture for a patient with microstomia and trismus: a clinical report. J Prosthet Dent. 2003. 89:540–543.

2. Benetti R, Zupi A, Toffanin A. Prosthetic rehabilitation for a patient with microstomia: a clinical report. J Prosthet Dent. 2004. 92:322–327.

3. Geckili O, Cilingir A, Bilgin T. Impression procedures and construction of a sectional denture for a patient with microstomia: a clinical report. J Prosthet Dent. 2006. 96:387–390.

4. Ohkubo C, Hosoi T, Kurtz KS. A sectional stock tray system for making impressions. J Prosthet Dent. 2003. 90:201–204.

5. Kaplowitz GJ. Trouble-shooting dual arch impressions II. J Am Dent Assoc. 1997. 128:1277–1281.

6. Gardner K, Loft GH. An intraoral coping technique for making impressions of multiple preparations. J Prosthet Dent. 1981. 45:570–571.

7. Vasilakis GJ, Vasilakis MD. Cast impression coping technique. Gen Dent. 2003. 51:48–50.

8. Ortensi L, Strocchi ML. Modified custom tray. J Prosthet Dent. 2000. 84:237–240.

9. Orstavik J. Copper-band impressions for complete crown abutments. J Prosthet Dent. 1974. 31:547–555.

10. Barghi N, Ontiveros JC. A predictable and accurate technique with elastomeric impression materials. Am J Dent. 1999. 12:161–163.

11. Small BW. Important factors for accurate impressions. Gen Dent. 2001. 49:260–263.

12. Chu CS, Smales RJ, Wei SH. Requirements of an impression material for fixed prostheses. Gen Dent. 1997. 45:548–555. quiz 56-7.

13. Carrotte PV, Johnson A, Winstanley RB. The influence of the impression tray on the accuracy of impressions for crown and bridge work-an investigation and review. Br Dent J. 1998. 185:580–585.