Objective: The aim of this study was to evaluate the accuracy of 7 different implant impression techniques for full-arch prostheses. Materials and Methods: A master cast simulating an edentulous arch with 4 implants was used. Seven impression techniques were tested: open tray with polyether Impregum (OTI); open tray with splint-polyether Impregum (OTSI); closed tray with polyether Impregum; open tray with polyether Ramitec; open tray with splintpolyether Ramitec; closed tray with polyether Ramitec (CTR); open tray with impression plaster (OTP). Five impressions of the master cast were taken for each technique using an impression simulator device. Casts were realized based on those impressions (n = 35). Median values of deviation from the master cast were recorded for each cast through a 3-dimensional laser scanner. Results: Only OTI (P = 0.028) and OTSI (P < 0.001) presented a statistically significant difference compared to the master cast. OTP (P = 0.99) and CTR (P = 0.10) showed median values of deviation close to zero (-0.001 and-0.003 mm, respectively). Conclusion: Stiff impression materials (such as plaster or rigid polyether) guarantee greater accuracy in cases of multiple implant impressions of patients with full-arch rehabilitations. Splinting of impression copings with acrylic resin did not improve accuracy.

Analysis of different impression techniques and materials on multiple implants through 3-dimensional laser scanner

PERA, FRANCESCO
First
;
2016-01-01

Abstract

Objective: The aim of this study was to evaluate the accuracy of 7 different implant impression techniques for full-arch prostheses. Materials and Methods: A master cast simulating an edentulous arch with 4 implants was used. Seven impression techniques were tested: open tray with polyether Impregum (OTI); open tray with splint-polyether Impregum (OTSI); closed tray with polyether Impregum; open tray with polyether Ramitec; open tray with splintpolyether Ramitec; closed tray with polyether Ramitec (CTR); open tray with impression plaster (OTP). Five impressions of the master cast were taken for each technique using an impression simulator device. Casts were realized based on those impressions (n = 35). Median values of deviation from the master cast were recorded for each cast through a 3-dimensional laser scanner. Results: Only OTI (P = 0.028) and OTSI (P < 0.001) presented a statistically significant difference compared to the master cast. OTP (P = 0.99) and CTR (P = 0.10) showed median values of deviation close to zero (-0.001 and-0.003 mm, respectively). Conclusion: Stiff impression materials (such as plaster or rigid polyether) guarantee greater accuracy in cases of multiple implant impressions of patients with full-arch rehabilitations. Splinting of impression copings with acrylic resin did not improve accuracy.
2016
25
2
232
237
Direct technique; Implant; Indirect technique; Splinted direct technique; Oral Surgery
PERA, FRANCESCO; PESCE, PAOLO; BEVILACQUA, MARCO; SETTI, PAOLO; MENINI, MARIA
File in questo prodotto:
File Dimensione Formato  
Pera F 2015 Implant Dent impronte.pdf

Accesso riservato

Tipo di file: PDF EDITORIALE
Dimensione 395.2 kB
Formato Adobe PDF
395.2 kB Adobe PDF   Visualizza/Apri   Richiedi una copia

I documenti in IRIS sono protetti da copyright e tutti i diritti sono riservati, salvo diversa indicazione.

Utilizza questo identificativo per citare o creare un link a questo documento: https://hdl.handle.net/2318/1738919
Citazioni
  • ???jsp.display-item.citation.pmc??? 3
  • Scopus 21
  • ???jsp.display-item.citation.isi??? 17
social impact