Implant Impression Techniques for the Edentulous Jaw: A Summary of Three Studies

被引:11
作者
Stimmelmayr, Michael [1 ,2 ]
Beuer, Florian [2 ]
Edelhoff, Daniel [2 ]
Gueth, Jan-Frederik [2 ]
机构
[1] Josef Heilingbrunnerstr 2, D-93413 Cham, Germany
[2] Univ Munich, Dept Prosthodont, Munich, Germany
来源
JOURNAL OF PROSTHODONTICS-IMPLANT ESTHETIC AND RECONSTRUCTIVE DENTISTRY | 2016年 / 25卷 / 02期
关键词
Passive fit; transfer accuracy; implant prosthodontics; SUPPORTED SUPERSTRUCTURES; MARGINAL FIT; ACCURACY; PROSTHESES; CONNECTION; SYSTEM; CASTS;
D O I
10.1111/jopr.12305
中图分类号
R78 [口腔科学];
学科分类号
1003 ;
摘要
PurposePrecise implant-supported restorations require accurate impressions. Transfer, pick-up, and splinted pick-up are commonly used techniques. Several in vitro studies have compared these impression techniques; however, all studies used mechanical evaluation methods. The purpose of this study was to compare the discrepancies of these impression techniques digitally in vitro and in vivo. Materials and MethodsFour dental implants were inserted in ten polymer mandibular models bilaterally in the regions of the first molars and canines. Three different impressions were made of each model and the models (original and stone casts) were scanned and digitized. Clinically, four implants were inserted in ten edentulous jaws; transfer and splinted pick-up impressions were made. With inspection software, discrepancies between the different impressions were calculated. ResultsThe mean discrepancies in the in vitro study of the original polymer model to stone casts were 124 34 m for the transfer type, 116 +/- 46 m for the pick-up type, and 80 +/- 25 m for the splinted pick-up type, resulting in a mean discrepancy between the transfer and splinted pick-up type of 44 m (124 - 80 m). Clinically, the mean discrepancy between these two impression techniques was 280 m. ConclusionsThe differing results between the transfer and splinted pick-up techniques of in vitro and in vivo data showed the need for clinical data; however, splinted pick-up impressions seemed to produce the most precise results.
引用
收藏
页码:146 / 150
页数:5
相关论文
共 34 条
[1]  
Akça K, 2004, INT J ORAL MAX IMPL, V19, P517
[2]  
Assif D, 1996, Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants, V11, P216
[3]  
Assif D, 1992, Int J Periodontics Restorative Dent, V12, P112
[4]  
Assuncao Wirley Goncalves, 2004, Implant Dent, V13, P358
[5]   Evaluation of Impression Accuracy for Implant at Various Angulations [J].
Assuncao, Wirley Goncalves ;
Britto, Rebeca Cavalcante ;
Ricardo Barao, Valentim Adelino ;
Delben, Juliana Aparecida ;
dos Santos, Paulo Henrique .
IMPLANT DENTISTRY, 2010, 19 (02) :167-174
[6]  
Barrett M G, 1993, J Prosthodont, V2, P75
[7]   Digital dentistry: an overview of recent developments for CAD/CAM generated restorations [J].
Beuer, F. ;
Schweiger, J. ;
Edelhoff, D. .
BRITISH DENTAL JOURNAL, 2008, 204 (09) :505-511
[8]   Marginal fit of 14-unit zirconia fixed dental prosthesis retainers [J].
Beuer, F. ;
Neumeier, P. ;
Naumann, M. .
JOURNAL OF ORAL REHABILITATION, 2009, 36 (02) :142-149
[9]   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
[10]   Comparative Analysis of 4 Impression Techniques for Implants [J].
Cabral, Leonardo Moreira ;
Guedes, Carlos Gramani .
IMPLANT DENTISTRY, 2007, 16 (02) :187-194