50 likes | 93 Views
This pilot study compares the accuracy and efficiency of a new triple-layer impression technique (TLIT) with the conventional impression technique (CIT) for fabricating auricular prostheses. Impression techniques are crucial for accurate reproduction of ears and prostheses fabrication. The study involved ear markings, custom trays, alginate impressions, gypsum casts, and measurement analysis. TLIT was found to be more accurate and cost-effective, reducing chairside orientation time for rehabilitation patients with auricular defects.
E N D
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 • 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.
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.
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.
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.