Cargando…

Three-dimensional accuracy of different impression techniques for dental implants

BACKGROUND: Accurate impression making is an essential prerequisite for achieving a passive fit between the implant and the superstructure. The aim of this in vitro study was to compare the three-dimensional accuracy of open-tray and three closed-tray impression techniques. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Th...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Nakhaei, Mohammadreza, Madani, Azam S, Moraditalab, Azizollah, Haghi, Hamidreza Rajati
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Medknow Publications & Media Pvt Ltd 2015
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4630706/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26604956
_version_ 1782398753568718848
author Nakhaei, Mohammadreza
Madani, Azam S
Moraditalab, Azizollah
Haghi, Hamidreza Rajati
author_facet Nakhaei, Mohammadreza
Madani, Azam S
Moraditalab, Azizollah
Haghi, Hamidreza Rajati
author_sort Nakhaei, Mohammadreza
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: Accurate impression making is an essential prerequisite for achieving a passive fit between the implant and the superstructure. The aim of this in vitro study was to compare the three-dimensional accuracy of open-tray and three closed-tray impression techniques. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Three acrylic resin mandibular master models with four parallel implants were used: Biohorizons (BIO), Straumann tissue-level (STL), and Straumann bone-level (SBL). Forty-two putty/wash polyvinyl siloxane impressions of the models were made using open-tray and closed-tray techniques. Closed-tray impressions were made using snap-on (STL model), transfer coping (TC) (BIO model) and TC plus plastic cap (TC-Cap) (SBL model). The impressions were poured with type IV stone, and the positional accuracy of the implant analog heads in each dimension (x, y and z axes), and the linear displacement (ΔR) were evaluated using a coordinate measuring machine. Data were analyzed using ANOVA and post-hoc Tukey tests (α = 0.05). RESULTS: The ΔR values of the snap-on technique were significantly lower than those of TC and TC-Cap techniques (P < 0.001). No significant differences were found between closed and open impression techniques for STL in Δx, Δy, Δz and ΔR values (P = 0.444, P = 0.181, P = 0.835 and P = 0.911, respectively). CONCLUSION: Considering the limitations of this study, the snap-on implant-level impression technique resulted in more three-dimensional accuracy than TC and TC-Cap, but it was similar to the open-tray technique.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-4630706
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2015
publisher Medknow Publications & Media Pvt Ltd
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-46307062015-11-24 Three-dimensional accuracy of different impression techniques for dental implants Nakhaei, Mohammadreza Madani, Azam S Moraditalab, Azizollah Haghi, Hamidreza Rajati Dent Res J (Isfahan) Original Article BACKGROUND: Accurate impression making is an essential prerequisite for achieving a passive fit between the implant and the superstructure. The aim of this in vitro study was to compare the three-dimensional accuracy of open-tray and three closed-tray impression techniques. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Three acrylic resin mandibular master models with four parallel implants were used: Biohorizons (BIO), Straumann tissue-level (STL), and Straumann bone-level (SBL). Forty-two putty/wash polyvinyl siloxane impressions of the models were made using open-tray and closed-tray techniques. Closed-tray impressions were made using snap-on (STL model), transfer coping (TC) (BIO model) and TC plus plastic cap (TC-Cap) (SBL model). The impressions were poured with type IV stone, and the positional accuracy of the implant analog heads in each dimension (x, y and z axes), and the linear displacement (ΔR) were evaluated using a coordinate measuring machine. Data were analyzed using ANOVA and post-hoc Tukey tests (α = 0.05). RESULTS: The ΔR values of the snap-on technique were significantly lower than those of TC and TC-Cap techniques (P < 0.001). No significant differences were found between closed and open impression techniques for STL in Δx, Δy, Δz and ΔR values (P = 0.444, P = 0.181, P = 0.835 and P = 0.911, respectively). CONCLUSION: Considering the limitations of this study, the snap-on implant-level impression technique resulted in more three-dimensional accuracy than TC and TC-Cap, but it was similar to the open-tray technique. Medknow Publications & Media Pvt Ltd 2015 /pmc/articles/PMC4630706/ /pubmed/26604956 Text en Copyright: © Dental Research Journal http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/3.0 This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 3.0 License, which allows others to remix, tweak, and build upon the work non-commercially, as long as the author is credited and the new creations are licensed under the identical terms.
spellingShingle Original Article
Nakhaei, Mohammadreza
Madani, Azam S
Moraditalab, Azizollah
Haghi, Hamidreza Rajati
Three-dimensional accuracy of different impression techniques for dental implants
title Three-dimensional accuracy of different impression techniques for dental implants
title_full Three-dimensional accuracy of different impression techniques for dental implants
title_fullStr Three-dimensional accuracy of different impression techniques for dental implants
title_full_unstemmed Three-dimensional accuracy of different impression techniques for dental implants
title_short Three-dimensional accuracy of different impression techniques for dental implants
title_sort three-dimensional accuracy of different impression techniques for dental implants
topic Original Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4630706/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26604956
work_keys_str_mv AT nakhaeimohammadreza threedimensionalaccuracyofdifferentimpressiontechniquesfordentalimplants
AT madaniazams threedimensionalaccuracyofdifferentimpressiontechniquesfordentalimplants
AT moraditalabazizollah threedimensionalaccuracyofdifferentimpressiontechniquesfordentalimplants
AT haghihamidrezarajati threedimensionalaccuracyofdifferentimpressiontechniquesfordentalimplants