Abstract
Objective: To verify the structural microdeformation by strain gages, around implants that have metal infrastructure, obtained by different materials and techniques impressions. Material and Methods: Three internal hexagon implants in polyurethane block (master model) with abutments were taken the impression with differents materials and techniques impression (n=4): addition silicon and transfer for open tray technique (Group I), condensation silicon and transfer for closed tray technique (Group II); and polyether and transfer for open tray techniques (Group III). Impressions were poured with type IV stone. Metallic infrastructure were made and installed in the master model by an aid of a manual ratchet wrench. A torque of 20N was used to install the metallic infrastructure. Microdeformation analysis was performed around the implants by strain gauge method. Two gauges were inserted into the polyurethane base, and three measurements were taken for each infrastructure. Data were analyzed using descriptive statistics and inference. Kruskal-Wallis test was used to verify association between materials and impression techniques and deformation around the implants, at 5% confidence. Results: Microdeformations around the implants showed no statistically significant difference (p = 0.123) between the experimental groups, Group I (215.8 µe), Group II (194.9 µe) and Group III (297.4 µe). Conclusion: The use of different materials and techniques impression to made of infrastructures for fixed implant-supported dental prosthesis did not present difference in microdeformation values around implants.
Highlights
Oral rehabilitation with osseointegrated implants has increasingly been performed in the day to day of the dental office
Material and Methods: Three internal hexagon implants in polyurethane block with abutments were taken the impression with differents materials and techniques impression (n=4): addition silicon and transfer for open tray technique (Group I), condensation silicon and transfer for closed tray technique (Group II); and polyether and transfer for open tray techniques (Group III)
The literature has related that direct impression with square transfers, retaining screw splinted with acrylic resin Duralay, GC or pattern, precisely records the relationship between the implants by means of a rigid impression, without distortions[14], resulting in more precise prosthetic parts, in comparison with prosthetic structures obtained by indirect impression with conical transfers [7,13,15,16,17,18]
Summary
Oral rehabilitation with osseointegrated implants has increasingly been performed in the day to day of the dental office. Addition silicones and polyethers are the materials that present the highest linear dimensional stability [20], greater rigidity after polymerization and higher resistance to transfer rotation within its tray [16] making it possible to obtain efficient working models, in addition to more precise and stable fit of implant-supported dentures [7]. The method is based on the use of electrical strain gauges, small electrical resistances that change the resistance to low intensity current, which detects the slightest deformation in the structure evaluated. Microdeformation of the prosthetic infrastructure, by means of the variables materials and techniques impression in implant-supported dental prostheses, the aim of this study was to verify, by means of strain gauges, the structural microdeformation occurring around implants with metal infrastructures for fixed dental prostheses, obtained by different materials and techniques impression. There would be no difference in the microdeformation values between the addition silicon and polyether materials, both by the direct splinted impression-taking technique
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Free) 
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 call
