In Vitro Implant Impression Accuracy Using a New Photopolymerizing SDR Splinting Material

PURPOSE The study aims to evaluate three-dimensionally (3D) the accuracy of implant impressions using a new resin splinting material, "Smart Dentin Replacement" (SDR). MATERIALS AND METHODS A titanium model of an edentulous mandible with six implant analogues was used as a master model and its dimensions measured with a coordinate measuring machine. Before the total 60 impressions were taken (open tray, screw-retained abutments, vinyl polysiloxane), they were divided in four groups: A (test): copings pick-up splinted with dental floss and fotopolymerizing SDR; B (test): see A, additionally sectioned and splinted again with SDR; C (control): copings pick-up splinted with dental floss and autopolymerizing Duralay® (Reliance Dental Mfg. Co., Alsip, IL, USA) acrylic resin; and D (control): see C, additionally sectioned and splinted again with Duralay. The impressions were measured directly with an optomechanical coordinate measuring machine and analyzed with a computer-aided design (CAD) geometric modeling software. The Wilcoxon matched-pair signed-rank test was used to compare groups. RESULTS While there was no difference (p = .430) between the mean 3D deviations of the test groups A (17.5 μm) and B (17.4 μm), they both showed statistically significant differences (p < .003) compared with both control groups (C 25.0 μm, D 19.1 μm). CONCLUSIONS Conventional impression techniques for edentulous jaws with multiple implants are highly accurate using the new fotopolymerizing splinting material SDR. Sectioning and rejoining of the SDR splinting had no impact on the impression accuracy.

Accuracy Comparison of Implant Impression Techniques: A Systematic Review

Background: Several studies link the seamless fit of implant-supported prosthesis with the accuracy of the dental impression technique obtained during acquisition. In addition, factors such as implant angulation and coping shape contribute to implant misfit. Purpose: The aim of this study was to identify the most accurate impression technique and factors affecting the impression accuracy. Material and Methods: A systematic review of peer-reviewed literature was conducted analyzing articles published between 2009 and 2013. The following search terms were used: implant impression, impression accuracy, and implant misfit.A total of 417 articles were identified; 32 were selected for review. Results: All 32 selected studies refer to in vitro studies. Fourteen articles compare open and closed impression technique, 8 advocate the open technique, and 6 report similar results. Other 14 articles evaluate splinted and non-splinted techniques; all advocating the splinted technique. Polyether material usage was reported in nine; six studies tested vinyl polysiloxane and one study used irreversible hydrocolloid. Eight studies evaluated different copings designs. Intraoral optical devices were compared in four studies. Conclusions: The most accurate results were achieved with two configurations: (1) the optical intraoral system with powder and (2) the open technique with splinted squared transfer copings, using polyether as impression material.

Accuracy comparison of implant impression techniques: A systematic review

Background Several studies link the seamless fit of implant-supported prosthesis with the accuracy of the dental impression technique obtained during acquisition. In addition, factors such as implant angulation and coping shape contribute to implant misfit. Purpose To identify the most accurate impression technique and factors affecting the impression accuracy. Material and Methods A systematic review of peer-reviewed literature was conducted analyzing articles published between 2009 and 2013. The following search terms were used: implant impression, impression accuracy, and implant misfit. A total of 417 articles was identified, 32 were selected for review. Results All 32 selected studies refer to in vitro studies. Fourteen articles compare open and closed impression technique, 8 advocate the open technique and 6 report similar results. Other 14 articles evaluate splinted and non-splinted techniques; all advocating the splinted technique. Polyether material usage was reported in 9; 6 studies tested vinyl polysiloane and 1 study used irreversible hydrocolloid. Eight studies evaluated different copings designs. Intra-oral optical devices were compared in 4 studies. Conclusions The most accurate results were achieved with two configurations: (1) the optical intra-oral system with powder; and (2) the open technique with splinted squared transfer copings, using polyether as impression material.

Evaluation of Impression Accuracy for Implant at Various Angulations

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

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.

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

Comparison of the Accuracy of Plastic and Metal Stock Trays for Implant Impressions

Purpose: This in vitro study evaluated the dimensional accuracy of two impression techniques (tapered and splinted) with two stock trays (plastic and metal) for implant-supported prostheses. Materials and Methods: A master cast with four parallel abutment analogs and a passive framework were fabricated. Polyvinyl siloxane impression material was used for all impressions with two metal stock trays and two plastic stock trays (closed and open trays). Four groups (tapered plastic, splinted plastic, tapered metal, and splinted metal) and a control group (master cast) were tested (n = 5 for each group). After the framework was seated on each of the casts, one abutment screw was tightened, and the marginal gap between the abutment and framework on the other side was measured with a stereomicroscope. The measurements were analyzed with the Kruskal-Wallis one-way analysis of variance on ranks test followed by the Dunn method. Results: The mean values (+/- standard deviations) for the abutment/framework interface gaps were: master cast, 32 +/- 2 mu m; tapered metal, 44 +/- 10 mu m; splinted metal, 69 +/- 28 mu m; tapered plastic, 164 +/- 58 mu m; splinted plastic, 128 +/- 47 mu m. No significant difference was detected between the master cast, tapered metal, and splinted metal groups or between the tapered and splinted plastic groups. Conclusions: In this study, the rigidity of the metal stock tray ensured better results than the plastic stock tray for implant impressions with a high-viscosity impression material (putty). Statistically similar results were obtained using tapered impression copings and splinted squared impression copings. The tapered impression copings technique and splinted squared impression copings technique with a metal stock tray produced precise casts with no statistically significant difference in interface gaps compared to the master cast. INT J ORAL MAXILLOFAC IMPLANTS 2012;27:544-550.

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

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.

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.

Vinylsiloxanether: a new impression material. Clinical study of implant impressions with vinylsiloxanether versus polyether materials.

The performance of three elastomeric materials for the open monophase implant impressions technique was tested under the following clinical conditions: polyether (IM) and vinylsiloxanether without (ID) and with additional simultaneous splinting of the implant impression copings with a higher shore hardness A-silicone (IDF).

Precisão das técnicas de moldagem e vazamento para próteses implantossuportadas

Coordenação de Aperfeiçoamento de Pessoal de Nível Superior (CAPES)

Precise Insertion of Orthodontic Miniscrews with a Stereolithographic Surgical Guide Based on Cone Beam Computed Tomography Data: A Pilot Study

Purpose: Orthodontic miniscrews are commonly used to achieve absolute anchorage during tooth movement. One of the most frequent complications is screw loss as a result of root contact. Increased precision during the process of miniscrew insertion would help prevent screw loss and potential root damage, improving treatment outcomes. Stereo lithographic surgical guides have been commonly used for prosthetic implants to increase the precision of insertion. The objective of this paper was to describe the use of a stereolithographic surgical guide suitable for one-component orthodontic miniscrews based on cone beam computed tomography (CBCT) data and to evaluate implant placement accuracy. Materials and Methods: Acrylic splints were adapted to the dental arches of four patients, and six radiopaque reference points were filled with gutta-percha. The patients were submitted to CBCT while they wore the occlusal splint. Another series of images was captured with the splint alone. After superimposition and segmentation, miniscrew insertion was simulated using planning software that allowed the user to check the implant position in all planes and in three dimensions. In a rapid-prototyping machine, a stereolithographic guide was fabricated with metallic sleeves located at the insertion points to allow for three-dimensional control of the pilot bur. The surgical guide was worn during surgery. After implant insertion, each patient was submitted to CBCT a second time to verify the implant position and the accuracy of the placement of the miniscrews. Results: The average differences between the planned and inserted positions for the ten miniscrews were 0.86 mm at the coronal end, 0.71 mm at the center, and 0.87 mm at the apical tip. The average angular discrepancy was 1.76 degrees. Conclusions: The use of stereolithographic surgical guides based on CBCT data allows for accurate orthodontic mini screw insertion without damaging neighboring anatomic structures. INT J ORAL MAXILLOFAC IMPLANTS 2011;26:860-865

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

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.