MATERIALS AND METHODS: A gypsum mold was coated with clear acrylic spray. The coated mold was then used to produce modified silicone experimental specimens (n = 35). The surface roughness of the modified silicone elastomers was compared with that of the control specimens, which were prepared by conventional flasking methods (n = 35). An atomic force microscope (AFM) was used for surface roughness measurement of silicone elastomer (unmodified and modified), and a scanning electron microscope (SEM) was used to evaluate the topographic conditions of coated and noncoated gypsum and silicone elastomer specimens (unmodified and modified) groups. After the gypsum molds were characterized, the fabricated silicone elastomers molded on noncoated and coated gypsum materials were evaluated further. Energy-dispersive X-ray spectroscopy (EDX) analysis of gypsum materials (noncoated and coated) and silicone elastomer specimens (unmodified and modified) was performed to evaluate the elemental changes after coating was conducted. Independent t test was used to analyze the differences in the surface roughness of unmodified and modified silicone at a significance level of p < 0.05.
RESULTS: Roughness was significantly reduced in the silicone elastomers processed against coated gypsum materials (p < 0.001). The AFM and SEM analysis results showed evident differences in surface smoothness. EDX data further revealed the presence of the desired chemical components on the surface layer of unmodified and modified silicone elastomers.
CONCLUSIONS: Silicone elastomers with lower surface roughness of maxillofacial prostheses can be obtained simply by coating a gypsum mold.
Methods: A three-unit bridge master model was fabricated using cold-cure acrylic resin. Four combinations of different viscosities of PVS impression materials - regular body (monophase) alone, light body with regular body, light body with heavy body, and light body with putty - were used to make an impression of the master model. Ten impressions from each group were taken and Type IV gypsum stone was used to generate the dies. The dies were measured at the inter-abutment distance, occlusogingival length, and shoulder width with a measuring microscope and were compared with the master model using one-way analysis of variance and Tukey (honest significant difference) test.
Results: Differences were found for inter-abutment distance between the master model and the light body with regular body and light body with putty dies (both P < 0.02). A difference was found for shoulder width between the master model and the regular body alone die (P = 0.01). No differences were found for occlusogingival distance (all P > 0.08).
Conclusion: Results suggested inter-abutment distance was most accurate when using a PVS light body combination. Occlusogingival length was accurate using any of the studied PVS combinations, and shoulder width was more accurate when using the regular body PVS.
Relevance for patients: These results should be considered when choosing the viscosity of the PVS to use for producing impressions of high accuracy and fabricating a well-fitting fixed prosthesis.
PURPOSE: The purpose of this virtual analysis study was to compare the accuracy and precision of 3-dimensional (3D) ear models generated by scanning gypsum casts with a smartphone camera and a desktop laser scanner.
MATERIAL AND METHODS: Six ear casts were fabricated from green dental gypsum and scanned with a laser scanner. The resultant 3D models were exported as standard tessellation language (STL) files. A stereophotogrammetry system was fabricated by using a motorized turntable and an automated microcontroller photograph capturing interface. A total of 48 images were captured from 2 angles on the arc (20 degrees and 40 degrees from the base of the turntable) with an image overlap of 15 degrees, controlled by a stepper motor. Ear 1 was placed on the turntable and captured 5 times with smartphone 1 and tested for precision. Then, ears 1 to 6 were scanned once with a laser scanner and with smartphones 1 and 2. The images were converted into 3D casts and compared for accuracy against their laser scanned counterparts for surface area, volume, interpoint mismatches, and spatial overlap. Acceptability thresholds were set at <0.5 mm for interpoint mismatches and >0.70 for spatial overlap.
RESULTS: The test for smartphone precision in comparison with that of the laser scanner showed a difference in surface area of 774.22 ±295.27 mm2 (6.9% less area) and in volume of 4228.60 ±2276.89 mm3 (13.4% more volume). Both acceptability thresholds were also met. The test for accuracy among smartphones 1, 2, and the laser scanner showed no statistically significant differences (P>.05) in all 4 parameters among the groups while also meeting both acceptability thresholds.
CONCLUSIONS: Smartphone cameras used to capture 48 overlapping gypsum cast ear images in a controlled environment generated 3D models parametrically similar to those produced by standard laser scanners.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: Candida albicans, Streptococcus mutans, and Staphylococcus aureus were incubated with modified and unmodified silicone groups (N = 35) for 30 days at 37°C. The counts of viable microorganisms in the accumulating biofilm layer were determined and converted to cfu/cm2 unit surface area. A scanning electron microscope (SEM) was used to evaluate the microbial adhesion. Statistical analysis was performed using t-test, one-way ANOVA, and post hoc tests as indicated.
RESULTS: Significant differences in microbial adhesion were observed between modified and unmodified silicone elastomers after the cells were incubated for 30 days (p < 0.001). SEM showed evident differences in microbial adhesion on modified silicone elastomer compared with unmodified silicone elastomer.
CONCLUSIONS: Surface modification of silicone elastomer yielding a smoother and less porous surface showed lower adhesion of different microorganisms than observed on unmodified surfaces.
METHODS: Five single maxillary premolar extraction sockets received PRF-CS grafts and five single maxillary premolar sockets received PRF-X grafts. Linear (horizontal and vertical) measurements were accomplished using Cone Beam Computed Tomography (CBCT) images and volumetric changes were assessed using MIMICS software. Soft tissue level changes were measured using Stonecast models. All measurements were recorded at baseline (before extraction) and at 5-months post-extraction.
RESULTS: Significant reduction in vertical and horizontal dimensions were observed in both groups except for distal bone height (DBH = 0.44 ± 0.45 mm, p = 0.09) and palatal bone height (PBH = 0.39 ± 0.34 mm, p = 0.06) in PRF-X group. PRF-CS group demonstrated mean horizontal shrinkage of 1.27 ± 0.82 mm (p = 0.02), when compared with PRF-X group (1.40 ± 0.85 mm, p = 0.02). Vertical resorption for mesial bone height (MBH = 0.56 ± 0.25 mm, p = 0.008), buccal bone height (BBH = 1.62 ± 0.91 mm, p = 0.01) and palatal bone height (PBH = 1.39 ± 0.87 mm, p = 0.02) in PRF-CS group was more than resorption in PRF-X group (MBH = 0.28 ± 0.14 mm, p = 0.01, BBH = 0.63 ± 0.39 mm, p = 0.02 and PBH = 0.39 ± 0.34 mm, p = 0.06). Volumetric bone resorption was significant within both groups (PRF-CS = 168.33 ± 63.68 mm3, p = 0.004; PRF-X = 102.88 ± 32.93 mm3, p = 0.002), though not significant (p = 0.08) when compared between groups. In PRF-X group, the distal soft tissue level (DSH = 1.00 ± 0.50 mm, p = 0.03) demonstrated almost 2 times more reduction when compared with PRF-CS group (DSH = 1.00 ± 1.00 mm, 0.08). The reduction of the buccal soft tissue level was pronounced in PRF-CS group (BSH = 2.00 ± 2.00 mm, p = 0.06) when compared with PRF-X group (BSH = 1.00 ± 1.50 mm, p = 0.05).
CONCLUSIONS: PRF-CS grafted sites showed no significant difference with PRF-X grafted sites in linear and volumetric dimensional changes and might show clinical benefits for socket augmentation. The study is officially registered with ClinicalTrials.gov Registration (NCT03851289).