Comparative Evaluation of the Dimensional Accuracy of Silicone-Based Putty Reline Impressions with Different Spacer Acquisition Techniques in Fixed Partial Dentures

Abdulelah Sameer Sindi; Hanan Salem A. Otudi; Asma Ahmed A. Muslihi; Roaa Abdu Althurwi; Mohammed E. Sayed; Bandar M.A. Al-Makramani; Fuad A. Al-Sanabani; Mohammad Abker Ahmed Ageel; Sultan A.Y. Jawbahi; Lakshya Kumar; Saeed Awod Bin Hassan; Ahmed Abdullah Al Malwi; Sultan Mohammed Kaleem; Khurshid Mattoo

doi:10.12659/MSM.946537

14 January 2025 : Laboratory Research

Comparative Evaluation of the Dimensional Accuracy of Silicone-Based Putty Reline Impressions with Different Spacer Acquisition Techniques in Fixed Partial Dentures

Abdulelah Sameer Sindi

^{ACDEG 1}, Hanan Salem A. Otudi

^{BCDEF 2}, Asma Ahmed A. Muslihi

^{BEFG 2}, Roaa Abdu Althurwi

^{BEFG 2}, Mohammed E. Sayed

^{BCEF 3}, Bandar M.A. Al-Makramani

^{BCDE 3}, Fuad A. Al-Sanabani

^{ACDE 3}, Mohammad Abker Ahmed Ageel

^{BEF 3}, Sultan A.Y. Jawbahi

^{BEF 3}, Lakshya Kumar

^{AEFG 4}, Saeed Awod Bin Hassan

^{ACDE 1}, Ahmed Abdullah Al Malwi

^{ACDE 1}, Sultan Mohammed Kaleem

^{ACDEG 5}, Khurshid Mattoo

^{ABDEG 3*}

DOI: 10.12659/MSM.946537

Med Sci Monit 2025; 31:e946537

Authors information Article notes Copyright and License information

Introduction Material and Methods Results Discussion Conclusions References

Related articles Order reprints Share article Share by email

View HTML version

Table 3 Post hoc (Tukey HSD) test results for multiple group comparison showing the level of difference observed among different putty reline technique groups in a short-span fixed partial denture situation.

Reference group	Comparison groups	Significant coordinates (ANOVA)

		Contralateral		Ipsilateral		Contralateral	Inter abutment

		P1–P6	P2–P3	L1–L5	L3–L4	L1–L6	F1–F4

		p-value	p-value	p-value	p-value	p-value	p-value
Group C	Group PP	0.0985	0.0001^*	0.2566	0.2201	0.0008^*	0.0592
	Group GP	0.1757	0.0000^*	0.0500^*	0.2762	0.0007^*	0.0032^*
	Group PS	0.9035	0.8651	0.3135	0.1930	0.0379^*	0.9831
	Group CT	0.1422	0.4032	0.6262	0.7349	0.0215^*	0.0058^*
	Group MT	0.7931	0.6165	0.9963	0.0040^*	0.1192	0.0724

Group PP	Group GP	0.9998	0.5584	0.9735	1.0000	1.0000	0.9048
	Group PS	0.0063^*	0.0068^*	1.0000	1.0000	0.5808	0.2538
	Group CT	1.0000	0.0579	0.988	0.9464	0.8888	0.9582
	Group MT	0.0029^*	0.0241^*	0.5353	0.6215	0.4939	1.0000

Group GP	Group PS	0.0139^*	0.0000^*	0.9512	1.0000	0.5527	0.0241^*
	Group CT	1.0000	0.0004^*	0.7326	0.9718	0.8712	1.0000
	Group MT	0.0068^*	0.0001^*	0.1544	0.5405	0.4666	0.8726

Group PS	Group CT	0.0103^*	0.9692	0.9953	0.9277	0.9933	0.0397^*
Group PS	Group MT	0.9999	0.9977	0.6105	0.6651	1.0000	0.2935

Group CT	Group MT	0.0049^*	0.9994	0.8909	0.1535	0.9820	0.9382
C – control (master model); PP – pre preparation putty; GP – gouging putty (post preparation putty); PS – polythene spacer; CT – conventional temporary; MT – modified temporary; ANOVA – analysis of variance; SD – standard deviation. Point angles: P1 (mesiobuccal distobuccal occlusal), P2 (mesiopalatal distopalatal occlusal), P3 (mesiobuccal occlusal), P4 (mesiopalatal occlusal), P5 (distobuccal occlusal), P6 (distopalatal occlusal); line angles: L1, L4 (mesiobuccal), L2 (mesiopalatal), L3, L5 (distobuccal), L6 (distopalatal); flat surface: F1, F3 (center of mesial), F2, F4 (center of distal). Statistical interpretation: Test used: Fisher least significant difference (LSD) post hoc Tukey Test; level of the degree of significance was determined on the value of ^* – significant.

Back to the Article

Comparative Evaluation of the Dimensional Accuracy of Silicone-Based Putty Reline Impressions with Different Spacer Acquisition Techniques in Fixed Partial Dentures

Your Privacy