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.

A Strain Gauge Analysis of Microstrain Induced by Various Splinting Methods and Acrylic Resin Types for Implant Impressions

Purpose: The aim of this study was to investigate the level of microstrain that is exerted during polymerization of acrylic resins used for splinting during implant impressions. Material and Methods: Two acrylic resins (GC Pattern Resin, Duralay II) and square transfer coping splinting methods were evaluated by means of strain gauge analysis. Two implants were embedded in a polyurethane block, and the abutments were positioned. Sixty specimens were prepared using two square transfer Copings that were rigidly connected to each other using the acrylic resins. The specimens were randomly divided into three groups of 20 each for the splinting methods: Method 1 was a one-piece method; in method 2, the splint was separated and reconnected after 17 minutes; and in method 3, the splint was separated and reconnected after 24 hours. In each group, half the specimens were splinted with GC Pattern Resin and the other half were splinted with Duralay II. Three microstrain measurements were performed by four strain gauges placed on the upper surface of the polyurethane blocks at 5 hours after resin polymerization for all groups. The data were analyzed statistically. Results: Both resin type and splinting method significantly affected microstrain. interaction terms were also significant. Method 1 in combination with Duralay II produced significantly higher microstrain (1,962.1 mu epsilon) than the other methods with this material (method 2: 241.1 mu epsilon; method 3: 181.5 mu epsilon). No significant difference was found between splinting methods in combination with GC Pattern Resin (method 1: 173.8 mu epsilon; method 2: 112.6 mu epsilon; method 3: 105.4 mu epsilon). Conclusions: Because of the high microstrain generated, Duralay II should not be used for one-piece acrylic resin splinting, and separation and reconnection are suggested. For GC Pattern Resin, variations in splinting methods did not significantly affect the microstrain created. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 2012;27:341-345

Effect of splinting in accuracy of two implants impression techniques

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

A comparison of profilometer and AutoCAD software techniques in evaluation of implant angulation in vitro

Purpose: The aim of this study was to compare 2 different methods of assessment of implants at different inclinations (90 degrees and 65 degrees)-with a profilometer and AutoCAD software. Materials and Methods: Impressions (n = 5) of a metal matrix containing 2 implants, 1 at 90 degrees to the surface and 1 at 65 degrees to the surface, were obtained with square impression copings joined together with dental floss splinting covered with autopolymerizing acrylic resin, an open custom tray, and vinyl polysiloxane impression material. Measurement of the angles (in degrees) of the implant analogs were assessed by the same blinded operator with a profilometer and through analysis of digitized images by AutoCAD software. For each implant analog, 3 readings were performed with each method. The results were subjected to a nonparametric Kruskal-Wallis test, with P <= .05 considered significant. Results: For implants perpendicular to the horizontal surface of the specimen (90 degrees), there were no significant differences between the mean measurements obtained with the profilometer (90.04 degrees) and AutoCAD (89.95 degrees; P=.9142). In the analyses of the angled implants at 65 degrees in relation to the horizontal surface of the specimen, significant differences were observed (P=.0472) between the mean readings with the profilometer (65.73 degrees) and AutoCAD (66.25 degrees). Conclusions: The degrees of accuracy of implant angulation recording vary among the techniques available and may vary depending on the angle of the implant. Further investigation is needed to determine the best test conditions and the best measuring technique for determination of the angle of the implant in vitro.

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

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.