Volume 50 Number 8, 2013
Pages 1079 — 1088
Abstract — The purpose of this article was to compare the accuracy of a new impression technique, the triple-layer impression technique (TLIT), with the conventional impression technique (CIT) to fabricate an auricular prosthesis. Fifteen male subjects (aged 22–45 yr) were selected. Ten markings were made on the subject's ear (super aurale [sa], sub aurale [sba], pre aurale [pra], post aurale [poa], A, A1, B, B1, C, and C1) and five measurements (sa'sba, pra–poa, A–A1, B–B1, and C–C1) were made. Custom-made trays were used to record impression in CIT and TLIT. Impressions were made using alginate, and models were cast with type IV gypsum product. Markings were transferred on the cast. Measurements were rechecked on the models. Distribution analysis of difference in measurements between the two impression techniques and the subject's actual values was evaluated. Sign test was used to analyze the statistical significance. Statistically significant differences were found in measurements A–A1, B–B1, and C–C1 between the two techniques when compared with the subject's actual dimensions (p < 0.01). TLIT was found to produce accurate models when compared with CIT. The TLIT used in the study was cost effective, less technique sensitive, and tailor made to reduce chairside orientation time during wax try-in appointments for rehabilitating patients, especially those with unilateral auricular defects.
Key words: accuracy, auricular prosthesis, conventional impression technique, distortion, ear anthropometry, ear measurement, ear orientation, sculpting, triple-layer impression technique, unilateral.
Go to TOP
Last Reviewed or Updated Wednesday, December 11, 2013 9:35 AM