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;PESCE, PAOLO;BEVILACQUA, MARCO;SETTI, PAOLO;MENINI, MARIA
2016

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.
File in questo prodotto:
Non ci sono file associati a questo prodotto.

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: http://hdl.handle.net/11567/843168
 Attenzione

Attenzione! I dati visualizzati non sono stati sottoposti a validazione da parte dell'ateneo

Citazioni
  • ???jsp.display-item.citation.pmc??? 3
  • Scopus 15
  • ???jsp.display-item.citation.isi??? 10
social impact