1 / 5

Comparison of two impression techniques for auricular prosthesis: Pilot study

Comparison of two impression techniques for auricular prosthesis: Pilot study. Kasim Mohamed, MDS; U. M. Mani, MDS; M. K. Seenivasan, MDS; A. K. Vaidhyanathan, MDS; P. T. Veeravalli, MDS. Aim

kathleenchavez
Download Presentation

Comparison of two impression techniques for auricular prosthesis: Pilot study

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Comparison of two impression techniques for auricular prosthesis: Pilot study Kasim Mohamed, MDS; U. M. Mani, MDS; M. K. Seenivasan, MDS; A. K. Vaidhyanathan, MDS; P. T. Veeravalli, MDS

  2. Aim • Compare accuracy of new impression technique (triple-layer impression technique [TLIT]) with conventional impression technique (CIT) to fabricate auricular prostheses. • Relevance • Impression techniques play vital role in accurate reproduction of affected and unaffected ears, orientation of ear during wax try-in, and fabrication of ear prostheses.

  3. Method • 10 markings made on subjects’ ears. • For 5 measurements: super aurale–sub aurale, pre aurale–post aurale, A–A1, B–B1, and C–C1) • Custom-made trays recorded impressions in CIT and TLIT using alginate. • Models were cast with type IV gypsum product. • Markings were transferred on cast and measures were rechecked. • Evaluated: • Distribution analysis of measurement differences between CIT and TLIT. • Subject’s actual values.

  4. Results • Statistically significant differences found in measurements A–A1, B–B1, and C–C1 between the two techniques compared with subject’s actual dimensions (p < 0.01). • TLIT found to produce accurate models compared with CIT.

  5. Conclusion • TLIT was cost effective, less technique sensitive, and tailor made to reduce chairside orientation time in wax try-in appointments for rehabilitation patients, especially those with unilateral auricular defects.

More Related