Abstract
Several studies have assessed the accuracy of the indirect snap-on impression technique. However, some impression techniques that utilize plastic snap-on impression copings have not yet been investigated. This study aimed to assess the three-dimensional (3D) accuracy of innovative implant-level impression techniques with plastic impression copings and the splinted open-tray technique with metal impression copings. This in vitro study used a reference model of the mandible with 4 parallel dental implants. Forty impressions were made with polyether impression material, using the splinted opentray technique with metal impression copings (SOM group), the non-splinted closed-tray technique with snap-on impression copings (NCS group), the non-splinted open-tray technique with snap-on impression copings (NOS group), or the splinted open-tray technique with snap-on impression copings (SOS group); n = 10 per group. Linear discrepancies in the inter-implant distances on the obtained casts were determined in the X, Y and Z axes with the use of a coordinate measuring machine. Subsequently, the 3D accuracy of each impression technique was calculated. Data was analyzed by means of the one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) followed by Tukey's post-hoc tests. Among different impression techniques, the amount of linear discrepancy was significant only for the Z axis. The SOM, NOS and SOS groups showed less discrepancy in this axis as compared to the NCS group (p < 0.001). A significant difference was also noted in 3D discrepancy (p = 0.022), with the SOM group showing a significantly higher discrepancy as compared to the SOS group (p = 0.016). The 3D accuracy of the implant-level splinted open-tray impression technique with plastic snap-on impression copings was significantly higher than that of the splinted open-tray technique with metal impression copings.
Highlights
Dental implants are currently a common treatment option for completely or partially edentulous patients.[1]
Forty impressions were made with polyether impression material, using the splinted opentray technique with metal impression copings (SOM group), the non-splinted closed-tray technique with snap-on impression copings (NCS group), the non-splinted open-tray technique with snap-on impression copings (NOS group), or the splinted open-tray technique with snap-on impression copings (SOS group); n = 10 per group
A significant difference was noted in 3D discrepancy (p = 0.022), with the SOM group showing a significantly higher discrepancy as compared to the SOS group (p = 0.016)
Summary
Dental implants are currently a common treatment option for completely or partially edentulous patients.[1]. Achieving a passive fit is a fundamental goal for implantsupported prostheses, and it is a prerequisite for the preservation of osseointegration.[3,4]. Unlike natural teeth, dental implants have highly limited mobility (~10 μm) due to the absence of the periodontal ligament.[6]. This means that any misfit in superstructures can result in applying loads to the implant, causing the accumulation of tension and subsequent complications, including screw loosening, screw fracture, implant fracture, prosthetic framework fracture, veneer fracture, or even osseointegration loss.[7,8]. Several studies have assessed the accuracy of the indirect snap-on impression technique. Some impression techniques that utilize plastic snap-on impression copings have not yet been investigated
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary 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.
