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...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Patil, Rupali, Kadam, Pankaj, Oswal, Chetan, Patil, Seema, Jajoo, Shweta, Gachake, Arati
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