Passive fit and accuracy of three dental implant impression techniques

被引:0
作者
Al Quran, Firas A. [1 ,2 ]
Rashdan, Bashar A. [3 ]
Abu Zomar, AbdelRahman A. [3 ]
Weiner, Saul [4 ]
机构
[1] Jordan Univ Sci & Technol, Fac Dent, Irbid 22110, Jordan
[2] Univ Sharjah, Coll Dent, Sharjah, U Arab Emirates
[3] Jordan Univ Sci & Technol, Dept Prosthodont, Fac Dent, Sharjah, U Arab Emirates
[4] Univ Med & Dent New Jersey, New Jersey Dent Sch, Dept Restorat Dent, Newark, NJ 07103 USA
来源
QUINTESSENCE INTERNATIONAL | 2012年 / 43卷 / 02期
关键词
dental implants; impression techniques; passive fit; PROSTHESES; PRECISION; SYSTEM;
D O I
暂无
中图分类号
R78 [口腔科学];
学科分类号
1003 ;
摘要
Objective: To reassess the accuracy of three impression techniques relative to the passive fit of the prosthesis. Method and Materials: An edentulous maxillary cast was fabricated in epoxy resin with four dental implants embedded and secured with heat-cured acrylic resin. Three techniques were tested: closed tray, open tray nonsplinted, and open tray splinted. One light-cured custom acrylic tray was fabricated for each impression technique, and transfer copings were attached to the implants. Fifteen impressions for each technique were prepared with medium-bodied consistency polyether. Subsequently, the impressions were poured in type IV die stone. The distances between the implants were measured using a digital micrometer. The statistical analysis of the data was performed with ANOVA and a one-sample t test at a 95% confidence interval. Results: The lowest mean difference in dimensional accuracy was found within the direct (open tray) splinted technique. Also, the one-sample t test showed that the direct splinted technique has the least statistical significant difference from direct nonsplinted and indirect (closed tray) techniques. All discrepancies were less than 100 pm. Conclusion: Within the limitations of this study, the best accuracy of the definitive prosthesis was achieved when the impression copings were splinted with autopolymerized acrylic resin, sectioned, and rejoined. However, the errors associated with all of these techniques were less than 100 pm, and based on the current definitions of passive fit, they all would be clinically acceptable. (Quintessence Int 2012;43:119-125)
引用
收藏
页码:119 / 125
页数:7
相关论文
共 24 条
[1]  
Abduo J, 2010, INT J ORAL MAX IMPL, V25, P506
[2]  
Assif D, 1996, Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants, V11, P216
[3]  
Assif D, 1999, INT J ORAL MAX IMPL, V14, P885
[4]  
Assif D, 1992, Int J Periodontics Restorative Dent, V12, P112
[5]   A comparison of the dimensional accuracy of the splinted and unsplinted impression techniques for the Bone-Lock implant system [J].
Burawi, G ;
Houston, F ;
Byrne, D ;
Claffey, N .
JOURNAL OF PROSTHETIC DENTISTRY, 1997, 77 (01) :68-75
[6]   Accuracy of open tray implant impressions: an in vitro comparison of stock versus custom trays [J].
Burns, J ;
Palmer, R ;
Howe, L ;
Wilson, R .
JOURNAL OF PROSTHETIC DENTISTRY, 2003, 89 (03) :250-255
[7]   Comparative Analysis of 4 Impression Techniques for Implants [J].
Cabral, Leonardo Moreira ;
Guedes, Carlos Gramani .
IMPLANT DENTISTRY, 2007, 16 (02) :187-194
[8]  
Carr A B, 1991, Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants, V6, P448
[9]  
Carr A B, 1992, Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants, V7, P468
[10]   Impression techniques for implant dentistry [J].
Chee, W. ;
Jivraj, S. .
BRITISH DENTAL JOURNAL, 2006, 201 (07) :429-432