Ocular Impression-Taking—Which Material Is Best?

    loading  Checking for direct PDF access through Ovid


Objectives:To assess the efficacy and effect on clinical signs of a polyvinylsiloxane (Tresident; Shütz Dental Group GmbH, Germany) compared with an irreversible hydrocolloid (Orthoprint; Zhermack SpA, Badia Polesine, Italy) for ocular impression-taking.Methods:Twenty subjects were recruited (13 female and 7 male), with mean age 31.1±4.6 years (SD) (range 25.8–39.7). Subjects attended for 2 sessions, each of 1-hr duration, on 2 separate days. Each session was scheduled at the same time on each day. At each visit, the subject underwent an ocular impression procedure, using either Tresident or Orthoprint, in random order and to one eye only. Investigator 2 was blind to this assignment. Two experienced practitioners conducted the study, investigator 1 performed the ocular impression procedures and investigator 2 observed and assessed the clinical signs: logMAR visual acuity, ocular surface staining, tear break-up time (TBUT), and ocular hyperemia.Results:Visual acuity was unaffected by either material; TBUT was marginally disrupted by both materials, but was not clinically significant according to published criteria; ocular redness increased with both materials; and corneal staining was significantly greater after Orthoprint impression. Less redness and clinically insignificant staining after impression-taking, with fewer clinical complications, was found after use of Tresident.Conclusions:Tresident offers a quicker, more effective, and clinically viable method of obtaining ocular impression topography compared with the traditional Orthoprint, and Orthoprint causes significantly more superficial punctuate staining of the corneal epithelium than Tresident.

    loading  Loading Related Articles