Objective: To compare the Position Tray with the ubiquitously used Rimlock impression tray regarding their usage and applicability.

Methods: 58 impressions were taken in one jaw (34 upper, 24 lower) with each tray by dental students using the impression material Position Penta (3M-ESPE, G). The impressions were examined by dentists and the quality of each was noted regarding the criteria: failed interconnection (I), bubbles (B), voids (V), form discrepancies (F), and size. Furthermore the preferred tray (P) and the reason for preferring a tray were noted by the student. Statistical analysis was performed using the Chi-Square Test (p < 0,05).

Results:

[%]	I	B	V	F	P
Position Tray	17,2	50,0	51,7	31,0	62,1
Rimlock Tray	25,9	51,7	46,6	29,3	37,9

The differences between the corresponding criteria were not significant, but for form discrepancies. Form discrepancies of the Position Trays were almost evenly distributed between "too wide" (8,6%) and "too narrow" (12,1%) , whereas the Rimlock trays were most often "too short" (19,0%). The Position Tray was most often favoured because of its better handling (20,7%).

Conclusion: The Position Tray allows to take impressions of a quality at least as high as with a Rimlock tray with a better handling.

Back to the Prosthodontics Research Program
Back to the IADR/AADR/CADR 82nd General Session (March 10-13, 2004)

Top Level Search