Abstract
A report is presented of a study which was carried out to investigate the standard of impressions for anterior crowns received at a commercial dental laboratory in Great Britain. Aspects examined were the type of tray and its suitability to the impression technique used, fixation of the impression to the tray, the method of storage in transit, contamination, defects on the preparations and defects elsewhere affecting the occlusion. The quality of the actual preparation was not examined in this study. Similar details were noted for the opposing impression. Of the 50 cases examined only 12 were recorded as totally satisfactory, with 26 cases being recorded as not being of an acceptable standard for the construction of an adequate restoration. The results are presented with the conclusion that in this survey the general quality of impression was unacceptable
Similar content being viewed by others
Log in or create a free account to read this content
Gain free access to this article, as well as selected content from this journal and more on nature.com
or
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Carrotte, P., Winstanley, R. & Green, J. A study of the quality of impressions for anterior crowns received at a commercial laboratory. Br Dent J 174, 235–240 (1993). https://doi.org/10.1038/sj.bdj.4808129
Published:
Issue date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/sj.bdj.4808129
This article is cited by
-
Accuracy of intraoral scanning versus conventional impressions for partial edentulous patients with maxillary defects
Scientific Reports (2023)
-
Dental impressions: Metal rim lock trays
British Dental Journal (2016)
-
Communication methods and production techniques in fixed prosthesis fabrication: a UK based survey. Part 2: Production techniques
British Dental Journal (2014)
-
Preparing dental students for careers as independent dental professionals: clinical audit and community-based clinical teaching
British Dental Journal (2011)
-
Quality of written prescriptions and master impressions for fixed and removable prosthodontics: a comparative study
British Dental Journal (2005)