Comparison of the accuracy for three dental impression techniques and index: An in vitro study

Objectives: This in vitro study compared the dimensional accuracy of stone index (I) and three impression techniques: tapered impression copings (T), squared impression copings (S) and modified squared impression copings (MS) for implant-supported prostheses. Methods: A master cast, with four parallel implant abutment analogs and a passive framework, were fabricated. Vinyl polysiloxane impression material was used for all impressions with two metal stock trays (open and closed tray). Four groups (I, T, S and MS) were tested (n = 5). A metallic framework was seated on each of the casts, one abutment screw was tightened, and the gap between the analog of implant and the framework was measured with a stereomicroscope. The groups' measurements (80 gap values) were analyzed using software (LeicaQWin - Leica Imaging Systems Ltd.) that received the images of a video camera coupled to a Leica stereomicroscope at 100× magnification. The results were statistically analyzed with Kruskal-Wallis One Way ANOVA on Ranks test followed by Dunn's Method, 0.05. Results: The mean values of abutment/framework interface gaps were: Master Cast = 32 μm (SD 2); Group I = 45 μm (SD 3); Group T = 78 μm (SD 25); Group S = 134 μm (SD 30); Group MS = 143 μm (SD 27). No significant difference was detected among Index and Master Cast (P = .05). Conclusion: Under the limitations of this study, it could be suggested that a more accurate working cast is possible using tapered impression copings techniques and stone index. © 2013 Japan Prosthodontic Society.

Accuracy of impression techniques for implants. Part 1 - Influence of transfer copings surface abrasion

Purpose: This study evaluated the influence of surface abrasion of transfer copings to obtain a precise master cast for a partially edentulous restoration with different inclinations. Materials and Methods: Replicas (N = 30) of a metal matrix (control group) containing two implants at 90° and 65° in relation to the benchtop were obtained using a polyether impression material and three impression techniques: square impression copings splint with dental floss and autopolymerizing acrylic resin (TRS), square impression copings abraded with aluminum oxide (TA), and square impression copings abraded with aluminum oxide and adhesive-coated (TAA). The replicas obtained in type V stone were digitalized, and the images were exported to AutoCAD software to perform the readings of possible degree alterations in implant inclinations. The results were submitted to analysis of variance (ANOVA) and Tukey test (α < 0.05). Results: Comparing the techniques with regard to the 90° implant inclination, no statistical difference was observed between the three techniques and the control group. Analyzing the three techniques with regard to the 65° implant inclination, no significant difference was seen between technique TA and the control group. Conclusions: Technique TA presented more accurate master casts than TRS and TAA techniques. The angulated implant (65°) tended to generate more imprecise master casts than implants perpendicular to the surface. © 2008 by The American College of Prosthodontists.

Accuracy of Impression Techniques for Impants. Part 2-Comparison of Splinting Techniques

Purpose: The aim of this study was to compare splinting techniques for impression copings of osseointegrated implants with different angulations.Materials and Methods: Replicas (N = 24) of a metal matrix (control) containing two implants at 90 degrees and 65 degrees in relation to the horizontal surface were obtained by using four impression techniques: Technique 1 (T1), direct technique with square copings without union in open trays; Technique 2 (T2), square copings splinted with dental floss and autopolymerizing acrylic resin; Technique 3 (T3), square copings splinted with dental floss and autopolymerizing acrylic resin, sectioned and splinted again with autopolymerizing acrylic resin; Technique 4 (T4), square copings splinted with prefabricated acrylic resin bar. The impression material was polyether. The replicas were individually scanned to capture the images, which were assessed in a graphic computation program. The program allowed the angulation between the bases of the replicas and the reading screws to be measured. The images of the replicas were compared with the matrix image (control), and the differences in angulations from the control image were calculated. The analysis of variance and the Tukey test for comparisons (p < 0.05) were used for statistical analysis.Results: All groups showed significant differences in the implant angulations in comparison with the control group (p < 0.05). Group T1 showed the highest difference (1.019 degrees) followed by groups T2 (0.747 degrees), T3 (0.516 degrees), and T4 (0.325 degrees), which showed the lowest angular alteration compared to the control group. There were significant differences between inclined and straight implants in all the groups, except in group T4.Conclusions: Based on the results, the splinting of pick-up impression copings is indicated for osseointegrated implant impressions. The square copings splinted with a prefabricated acrylic resin bar presented the best results among the pick-up impression techniques evaluated in this study.

The Effect of Splint Material Rigidity in Implant Impression Techniques

Purpose This in vitro study compared the dimensional accuracy of two impression techniques Duralay splinted impression copings (D) and metal splinted impression copings (M) for implant supported pros theses Materials and Methods A master cast with four parallel implant abutment analogs and a passive framework were fabricated Vinyl polysiloxane impression material was used for all impressions with a metal stock tray Two groups (D and M) were tested (n = 5) The measurement method employed was just one titanium screw tightened to the framework Each group s measurements were analyzed using software that received the images of a video camera coupled to a stereomicroscope at X100 magnification The results were analyzed statistically (t test) Results The mean values of abutment/framework interface gaps were master cast = 32 mu m (SD 2), group D = 165 mu m (SD 60), and group M = 69 mu m (SD 36) There was a statistically significant difference between the D and M groups (P <= 001) Conclusion Under the limitations of this study, it could be suggested that a more accurate working cast can be fabricated using metal splinted impression copings INT J ORAL MAXILLOFAC IMPLANTS 2010 25 1153-1158

Accuracy of Impression Techniques for an Implant-Supported Prosthesis

Purpose: This in vitro study compared the dimensional accuracy of a stone index and of two impression techniques (squared impression copings and modified squared impression copings) for implant-supported prostheses. Materials and Methods: A master cast with four parallel implant-abutment analogs and a passive framework were fabricated. Vinyl polysiloxane impression material was used for all impressions with a metal stock tray. Three groups of impressions were tested (n = 5): index (1), squared (S), and modified squared (MS). The measurement method employed was just one titanium screw tightened to the framework. The measurements (60 gap values) were analyzed using software that received the images from a video camera coupled to a stereomicroscope at x 100 magnification. The results were evaluated statistically (analysis of variance, Holm-Sidak method, alpha = .05). Results: The mean abutment/framework interface gaps were: master cast = 31.63 mu m; group I = 45.25 mu m; group S = 96.14 mu m; group MS = 51.20 mu m. No significant difference was detected among the index and modified squared techniques (P = .05). Conclusion: Under the limitations of this study, the techniques modified squared and index generated more accurate casts than the squared technique. INT J ORAL MAXILLOFAC IMPLANTS 2010;25:715-721

Comparison of impression techniques and materials for implant-supported prosthesis

Purpose: To investigate, in vitro, the dimensional accuracy of two impression techniques (squared impression copings and squared impression copings sandblasted and coated with impression adhesive) made of vinyl polysiloxane and polyether impression materials. Materials and Methods: A master cast (control group) with four parallel implant abutment analogs, a passive framework, and a custom aluminum tray was fabricated. Four groups (n = 5 each group) were tested: squared Impregum (SI), squared Express (SE), sandblasted adhesive squared Impregum (ASI), and sandblasted adhesive squared Express (ASE). The measurement method employed was just one titanium screw tightened to the framework. A stereomicroscope was used to evaluate the fit of the framework by measuring the size of the gap between the abutment and the framework. The results were analyzed statistically. Results: The mean values for the abutment/framework interface gaps were: master cast, 31.63 mu m (SD 2.16); SI, 38.03 mu m (SD 9.29); ASI, 46.80 mu m (SD 8.47); SE, 151.21 mu m (SD 22.79); and ASE, 136.59 mu m (SD 29.80). No significant difference was detected between the SI or ASI techniques and the master cast. No significant difference was detected between the SE and ASE techniques. Conclusion: Within the limitations of this study, it can be concluded that Impregum Soft medium consistency was the best impression material and the impression technique did not influence the accuracy of the stone casts. INT J ORAL MAXILLOFAC IMPLANTS 2010;25:771-776

Effect of the association between the tray and impression techniques on angulated implants using the All-on-Four system

Fundação de Amparo à Pesquisa do Estado de São Paulo (FAPESP)

Effect of splinting in accuracy of two implants impression techniques

Fundação de Amparo à Pesquisa do Estado de São Paulo (FAPESP)

Moldagens em prótese total

The anatomical and functional impressions philosophies are presented to the professionals who are active in the area, so that they can review concepts and thus obtain more precise molds, based on scientific knowledge. In parallel, impression techniques recommended by the Prosthodontics subject from Araçatuba Dental School – UNESP are also commented.

Accuracy of impression and pouring techniques for an implant-supported prosthesis

Purpose: The purpose of this in vitro study was to compare the dimensional accuracy of a stone index and of 3 impression techniques (tapered impression copings, squared impression copings, and squared impression copings splinted with acrylic resin) associated with 3 pouring techniques (conventional, pouring using latex tubes fitted onto analogs, and pouring after joining the analogs with acrylic resin) for implant-supported prostheses. Materials and Methods: A mandibular brass cast with 4 stainless steel implant-abutment analogs, a framework, and 2 aluminum custom trays were fabricated. Polyether impression material was used for all impressions. Ten groups were formed (a control group and 9 test groups formed by combining each pouring technique and impression technique). Five casts were made per group for a total of 50 casts and 200 gap values (1 gap value for each implant-abutment analog). Results: The mean gap value with the index technique was 27.07 mu m. With the conventional pouring technique, the mean gap values were 116.97 mu m for the tapered group, 5784 mu m for the squared group, and 73.17 mu m for the squared splinted group. With pouring using latex tubes, the mean gap values were 65.69 mu m for the tapered group, 38.03 mu m for the squared group, and 82.47 mu m for the squared splinted group. With pouring after joining the analogs with acrylic resin, the mean gap values were 141.12 jum for the tapered group, 74.19 mu m for the squared group, and 104.67 mu m for the squared splinted group. No significant difference was detected among Index, squarellatex techniques, and master cast (P > .05). Conclusions: The most accurate impression technique utilized squared copings. The most accurate pouring technique for making the impression with tapered or squared copings utilized latex tubes. The pouring did not influence the accuracy of the stone casts when using splinted squared impression copings. Either the index technique or the use of squared coping combined with the latex-tube pouring technique are preferred methods for making implant-supported fixed restorations with dimensional accuracy.

An Implant-Transfer Technique Without Impression Material

Different transfer impression techniques for implant-supported prostheses have been suggested to obtain a working cast. This article describes and illustrates clinical and laboratory pros-thodontic procedures to transfer implant positions with splinted transfer copings and without impression material to form a laboratory analog transfer template. With this technique, a preliminary cast is modified to place the analogs according to a corrected position and obtain the master cast. Although this technique does not record adjacent tissues, it is a simple procedure, less time consuming, and easily performed.

Prosthetic transfer impression accuracy evaluation for osseointegrated implants

Purpose: The objective of this study was to evaluate and compare 3 impression techniques for osseointegrated implant transfer procedures.Materials and Methods: (1) Group Splinted with Acrylic Resin (SAR), impression with square copings splinted with prefabricated autopolymerizing acrylic resin bar; (2) Group Splinted with Light-Curing Resin (SLR), impression, with square copings splinted with prefabricated light-curing composite resin bar; (3). Group Independent Air-abraded (IAA), impression with independent square coping aluminum oxide air-abraded. Impression procedures were performed with polyether material, and the data obtained was compared with a control group. These were characterized by metal matrix (MM) measurement values of the implants inclination positions at 90 and 05 degrees in relation to the matrix surface. Readings of analogs and implant inclinations were assessed randomly through graphic computation AutoCAD software. Experimental groups angular deviation with MM were submitted to analysis of variance and means were compared through Tukey's test (P < 0.05).Results: There was no statistical significant difference between SAR and SLR experimental groups and MM for vertical and angulated implants. Group IAA presented a statistically significant difference for angulated implants.Conclusion: It was concluded within the limitations of this study, that SAR and SLR produced more accurate casts than IAA technique, which presented inferior results.