Abstract
The aim of this study was to evaluate the accuracy of 7 different implant impression techniques for full-arch prostheses. A master cast simulating an edentulous arch with 4 implants was used. Seven impression techniques were tested: open tray with polyether Impregum (OTI); open tray with splint-polyether Impregum (OTSI); closed tray with polyether Impregum; open tray with polyether Ramitec; open tray with splint-polyether Ramitec; closed tray with polyether Ramitec (CTR); open tray with impression plaster (OTP). Five impressions of the master cast were taken for each technique using an impression simulator device. Casts were realized based on those impressions (n = 35). Median values of deviation from the master cast were recorded for each cast through a 3-dimensional laser scanner. Only OTI (P = 0.028) and OTSI (P < 0.001) presented a statistically significant difference compared to the master cast. OTP (P = 0.99) and CTR (P = 0.10) showed median values of deviation close to zero (-0.001 and -0.003 mm, respectively). Stiff impression materials (such as plaster or rigid polyether) guarantee greater accuracy in cases of multiple implant impressions of patients with full-arch rehabilitations. Splinting of impression copings with acrylic resin did not improve accuracy.
Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
