We are using cookies to implement functions like login, shopping cart or language selection for this website. Furthermore we use Google Analytics to create anonymized statistical reports of the usage which creates Cookies too. You will find more information in our privacy policy.
OK, I agree I do not want Google Analytics-Cookies
Quintessence International



Forgotten password?


Dear readers,

our online journals are moving. The new (and old) issues of all journals can be found at
In most cases you can log in there directly with your e-mail address and your current password. Otherwise we ask you to register again. Thank you very much.

Your Quintessence Publishing House
Quintessence Int 34 (2003), No. 3     1. Mar. 2003
Quintessence Int 34 (2003), No. 3  (01.03.2003)

Page 189-198

Three-dimensional analysis of dual-arch impression trays
Cayouette, Monica J. / Burgess, John O. / Jones jr., Robert E. / Yuan, Cheng H.
Objective: The objective of this investigation was to measure and compare the dimensions of casts made using four types of impression trays and two impression materials to the dimensions of the original master model. This study differed from previous studies by using three-dimensional measurement. Method and materials: Vinyl polysiloxane and polyether impressions were made of two crown preparations of ivorine teeth cemented into an acrylic master model. Two grooves were placed into each of the preparations. In addition, six points were placed on each occlusal surface and six were placed on each finish line. Impressions were poured with a Type IV dental stone at 48 hours. A three-dimensional measuring system was used to determine coordinates of 32 points on the master model and resulting casts. Inter- and intratooth dimensions were calculated from the measured coordinates. Results: The accuracy and precision of the impression techniques were assessed using analysis of variance (ANOVA) and Dunnett's t test. The ANOVA and Dunnett's t test indicated that only the custom tray did not detect any inaccuracies and was as reproducible as the master model. Conclusion: This study suggests that the custom tray technique is most accurate, even though all other techniques evaluated apparently produce clinically acceptable results.
fulltext (no access granted) Endnote-Export