Accuracy of tooth‐implant impressions: Comparison of five different techniques

PURPOSE: To compare the accuracy of five different tooth‐implant impression techniques. MATERIALS AND METHODS: In this in vitro, experimental study, an acrylic model containing one bone‐level Straumann dental implant at the site of maxillary first molar and an adjacent second premolar prepared for a porcelain fused to metal restoration was used. Impressions were made from the model using five different one‐step tooth‐implant impression techniques including scanning with an intraoral scanner, occlusal matrix, wax relief, closed‐tray, and open‐tray techniques. Each technique was repeated 15 times. The impressions were poured with dental stone, and the obtained casts were scanned by a laboratory scanner. The scan file of each technique was compared with the scan file of the original acrylic model by Geomagic Design X software. Data were analyzed by one‐way analysis of variance, and Tamhane's post‐hoc test (α = 0.05). RESULTS: For dental implant, intraoral scanning had the highest accuracy (0.1004 mm(2)) followed by open‐tray (0.1914 mm(2)), occlusal matrix (0.2101 mm(2)), closed‐tray (0.2422 mm(2)), and wax relief (0.2585 mm(2)) techniques (p < 0.05). For the prepared tooth, wax relief (0.0988 mm(2)) had the highest accuracy followed by occlusal matrix (0.1211 mm(2)), open‐tray (0.1663 mm(2)), closed‐tray (0.1737 mm(2)), and intraoral scanning (0.4903 mm(2)) technique (p < 0.05). For both dental implant and prepared tooth, occlusal matrix (0.2431 mm(2)) had the highest accuracy followed by open‐tray (0.2574 mm(2)), wax relief (0.2693 mm(2)), closed‐tray (0.2862 mm(2)), and intraoral scanning (0.3192 mm(2)) technique (p > 0.05). CONCLUSION: The compared simultaneous tooth‐implant impression techniques had comparable accuracy with no significant difference.