An alternate impression technique for ocular prostheses

This article describes an alternative two-step ocular prosthesis impression technique that employs two materials of different consistencies. The method is intended to provide better adaptation to underlying tissues, increased mobility of the prosthesis owing to improvements in facial contours, and improved esthetics, as well as offering the patient greater comfort and security. These advantages and this prosthesis' relative ease of fabrication mean it should be considered as the first step in the management of untreated anophthalmic sockets. © 2012 by the American College of Prosthodontists.

Dynamic functional impression technique fo severely resorbed alveolar ridges

The process of bone resorption can reduce the volume of the alveolar crest, which makes may make difficult impression taking of the alveolar tissue and the subsequent fit of a new denture. This clinical report describes a fast and simple technique for impressions of edentulous ridges to replace complete dentures, using a temporary tissue conditioner material on the denture base. The existing denture must cover the whole supporting area and should be in harmony with the adjacent oral structures. This technique reduces the number of steps involved and minimizes treatment time and expenses.

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.

Evaluation of a two-step pouring technique for implant-supported prostheses impression

The aim of this study was to evaluate the efficacy of a pouring technique for implant-supported prostheses impressions. A metallic matrix (control group) with two implants positioned at 90 and 65 degrees was fabricated. The matrix was submitted to the direct transfer impression technique. In group CP (conventional pouring - n = 10), casts were obtained by the conventional pouring technique. In group EP (experimental pouring - n = 10), the analogs were embraced with latex tubes before the first pouring and then submitted to a second pouring. Vertical misfit and implants/analogs inclinations were evaluated. Data were analyzed by analysis of variance and Tukey's test (p < .05). Results demonstrated significant difference (p < .05) between control and experimental groups for misfit measurement in perpendicular implant/analog and between control group and group EP in leaning implant/analog. Considering inclination, there were significant differences (p < .05) between control and experimental groups for leaning analogs. Independently of the pouring technique, perpendicular implants produced more accurate casts.

Accuracy of stone casts obtained by different impression materials

Several impression materials are available in the Brazilian marketplace to be used in oral rehabilitation. The aim of this study was to compare the accuracy of different impression materials used for fixed partial dentures following the manufacturers' instructions. A master model representing a partially edentulous mandibular right hemi-arch segment whose teeth were prepared to receive full crowns was used. Custom trays were prepared with auto-polymerizing acrylic resin and impressions were performed with a dental surveyor, standardizing the path of insertion and removal of the tray. Alginate and elastomeric materials were used and stone casts were obtained after the impressions. For the silicones, impression techniques were also compared. To determine the impression materials' accuracy, digital photographs of the master model and of the stone casts were taken and the discrepancies between them were measured. The data were subjected to analysis of variance and Duncan's complementary test. Polyether and addition silicone following the single-phase technique were statistically different from alginate, condensation silicone and addition silicone following the double-mix technique (p < .05), presenting smaller discrepancies. However, condensation silicone was similar (p > .05) to alginate and addition silicone following the double-mix technique, but different from polysulfide. The results led to the conclusion that different impression materials and techniques influenced the stone casts' accuracy in a way that polyether, polysulfide and addition silicone following the single-phase technique were more accurate than the other materials.

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)

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