RESUMEN
AIM: To investigate the effect of different types of nanoparticles on the compressive strength (CS) and diametral tensile strength (DTS) of type IV dental stones. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A total of 100 specimens were made from the mould for all five groups. Four commercially available nanoparticles (aluminium oxide (Al2O3), silicon dioxide (SiO2), zinc oxide (ZnO), and zirconium oxide (ZrO2)) were used in this study in a concentration of 10%. CS and DTS tests were performed in a universal test machine. The data were statistically analysed using ANOVA and Student's t-test. RESULTS: The interaction between nanoparticles and the type of dental stone was found to be statistically significant (p < 0.05). CS and DTS values decreased by adding all four nanoparticles. The lowest CS and DTS were observed in 10% ZnO nanoparticles when added to type IV dental stone. CONCLUSION: It was concluded that the addition of nanoparticles (Al2O3, SiO2, ZnO, and ZrO2) to die stone significantly decreased the CS and DTS for all groups. Among all groups, the incorporation of 10% ZrO2 nanoparticles (group E) to die stone showed significantly less decrease in CS and DTS compared to Al2O3, SiO2, and ZnO. Incorporation of ZnO nanoparticles, on the other hand, showed a significantly more amount of decrease in the CS and DTS compared to Al2O3, SiO2, and ZrO2.
RESUMEN
AIM: To evaluate the impression defects and compare the dimensional accuracy of three different impression techniques (single-step, two-step without spacer, two-step with spacer) for fixed partial dentures using a digital intraoral scanner in the anterior maxillary region. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Thirty subjects, above the age of 18 years with maxillary central/lateral incisor requiring fixed prostheses were selected according to the inclusion and exclusion criteria. The impressions were rated and evaluated using Heine C2.3K Binocular loupes (Heine Ltd., Dover, NH, USA). An intraoral scanner and digital vernier calipers were used to study and compare the dimensional accuracy of all three impression techniques. Results: Statistical analysis using the chi-square test revealed that the single-step double mix technique showed the least number of defects (40%), followed by the two-step without spacer (56.7%) and then the two-step with spacer (80%) impression techniques. Using Kruskal Wallis and Mann Whitney U test for dimensional accuracy, it was found that the two-step with spacer impression technique was closer to the control group (intraoral scanner) followed by the two-step without spacer and then the single-step double mix impression techniques. CONCLUSION: All three impression techniques showed the presence of impression defects, mainly voids and bubbles. The single-step double mix and two-step without spacer techniques had more favourable outcomes compared to the two-step with spacer impression technique. The two-step with spacer impression technique was dimensionally more accurate compared to the two-step without spacer and single-step double mix techniques for fixed partial dentures.