Cargando…
A comparative analysis of the accuracy of implant master casts fabricated from two different transfer impression techniques
AIM: This study evaluated and compared two impression techniques in terms of their dimensional accuracies to reproduce implant positions on working casts. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A master model was designed to simulate a clinical situation. Impressions were made using four techniques: (1) Stock open...
Autores principales: | , , , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
Medknow Publications & Media Pvt Ltd
2016
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4820574/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27114954 http://dx.doi.org/10.4103/2231-0762.178747 |
_version_ | 1782425429464842240 |
---|---|
author | Patil, Rupali Kadam, Pankaj Oswal, Chetan Patil, Seema Jajoo, Shweta Gachake, Arati |
author_facet | Patil, Rupali Kadam, Pankaj Oswal, Chetan Patil, Seema Jajoo, Shweta Gachake, Arati |
author_sort | Patil, Rupali |
collection | PubMed |
description | AIM: This study evaluated and compared two impression techniques in terms of their dimensional accuracies to reproduce implant positions on working casts. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A master model was designed to simulate a clinical situation. Impressions were made using four techniques: (1) Stock open tray (SOT) technique; (2) stock closed tray (SCT) technique; (3) custom open tray (COT) technique; and (3) custom closed tray (CCT) technique. Reference points on the hexagonal silhouette of the implant on master model and onto the analogs of the obtained master casts were compared after using the four impression techniques. Measurements were made using an optical microscope, capable of recording under 50x magnifications. The means and standard deviations of all the groups and subgroups were calculated and statically analyzed using analysis of variance (ANOVA) and Tukey's test. RESULTS: The open tray impressions showed significantly less variation from the master model and all the techniques studied were comparable. CONCLUSION: All the techniques studied shown some distortion. COT showed the most accurate results of all the techniques. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-4820574 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2016 |
publisher | Medknow Publications & Media Pvt Ltd |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-48205742016-04-25 A comparative analysis of the accuracy of implant master casts fabricated from two different transfer impression techniques Patil, Rupali Kadam, Pankaj Oswal, Chetan Patil, Seema Jajoo, Shweta Gachake, Arati J Int Soc Prev Community Dent Original Article AIM: This study evaluated and compared two impression techniques in terms of their dimensional accuracies to reproduce implant positions on working casts. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A master model was designed to simulate a clinical situation. Impressions were made using four techniques: (1) Stock open tray (SOT) technique; (2) stock closed tray (SCT) technique; (3) custom open tray (COT) technique; and (3) custom closed tray (CCT) technique. Reference points on the hexagonal silhouette of the implant on master model and onto the analogs of the obtained master casts were compared after using the four impression techniques. Measurements were made using an optical microscope, capable of recording under 50x magnifications. The means and standard deviations of all the groups and subgroups were calculated and statically analyzed using analysis of variance (ANOVA) and Tukey's test. RESULTS: The open tray impressions showed significantly less variation from the master model and all the techniques studied were comparable. CONCLUSION: All the techniques studied shown some distortion. COT showed the most accurate results of all the techniques. Medknow Publications & Media Pvt Ltd 2016 /pmc/articles/PMC4820574/ /pubmed/27114954 http://dx.doi.org/10.4103/2231-0762.178747 Text en Copyright: © Journal of International Society of Preventive and Community Dentistry 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 Patil, Rupali Kadam, Pankaj Oswal, Chetan Patil, Seema Jajoo, Shweta Gachake, Arati A comparative analysis of the accuracy of implant master casts fabricated from two different transfer impression techniques |
title | A comparative analysis of the accuracy of implant master casts fabricated from two different transfer impression techniques |
title_full | A comparative analysis of the accuracy of implant master casts fabricated from two different transfer impression techniques |
title_fullStr | A comparative analysis of the accuracy of implant master casts fabricated from two different transfer impression techniques |
title_full_unstemmed | A comparative analysis of the accuracy of implant master casts fabricated from two different transfer impression techniques |
title_short | A comparative analysis of the accuracy of implant master casts fabricated from two different transfer impression techniques |
title_sort | comparative analysis of the accuracy of implant master casts fabricated from two different transfer impression techniques |
topic | Original Article |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4820574/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27114954 http://dx.doi.org/10.4103/2231-0762.178747 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT patilrupali acomparativeanalysisoftheaccuracyofimplantmastercastsfabricatedfromtwodifferenttransferimpressiontechniques AT kadampankaj acomparativeanalysisoftheaccuracyofimplantmastercastsfabricatedfromtwodifferenttransferimpressiontechniques AT oswalchetan acomparativeanalysisoftheaccuracyofimplantmastercastsfabricatedfromtwodifferenttransferimpressiontechniques AT patilseema acomparativeanalysisoftheaccuracyofimplantmastercastsfabricatedfromtwodifferenttransferimpressiontechniques AT jajooshweta acomparativeanalysisoftheaccuracyofimplantmastercastsfabricatedfromtwodifferenttransferimpressiontechniques AT gachakearati acomparativeanalysisoftheaccuracyofimplantmastercastsfabricatedfromtwodifferenttransferimpressiontechniques AT patilrupali comparativeanalysisoftheaccuracyofimplantmastercastsfabricatedfromtwodifferenttransferimpressiontechniques AT kadampankaj comparativeanalysisoftheaccuracyofimplantmastercastsfabricatedfromtwodifferenttransferimpressiontechniques AT oswalchetan comparativeanalysisoftheaccuracyofimplantmastercastsfabricatedfromtwodifferenttransferimpressiontechniques AT patilseema comparativeanalysisoftheaccuracyofimplantmastercastsfabricatedfromtwodifferenttransferimpressiontechniques AT jajooshweta comparativeanalysisoftheaccuracyofimplantmastercastsfabricatedfromtwodifferenttransferimpressiontechniques AT gachakearati comparativeanalysisoftheaccuracyofimplantmastercastsfabricatedfromtwodifferenttransferimpressiontechniques |