An evaluation of impression techniques for multiple internal connection implant prostheses

  • Vigolo P
  • Fonzi F
  • Majzoub Z
 et al. 
  • 76

    Readers

    Mendeley users who have this article in their library.
  • 99

    Citations

    Citations of this article.

Abstract

Movement of impression copings inside the impression material using an open-tray impression technique during clinical and laboratory phases may cause inaccuracy in transferring the 3-dimensional spatial orientation of implants intraorally to the definitive cast. Consequently the restoration may require corrective procedures. This in vitro study evaluated the accuracy of 3 different impression techniques using polyether impression material to obtain a precise definitive cast for a multi-unit implant restoration with multiple internal connection implants. A reference acrylic resin model with 4 internal connection implants (3i Implant Innovations) was fabricated. Forty-five medium-consistency polyether impressions (Impregum Penta) of this model were made with square impression copings using an open-tray technique. Three groups of 15 specimens each were made with different impression techniques: in the first group, nonmodified square impression copings were used (NM group); in the second group, square impression copings were used and joined together with autopolymerizing acrylic resin before the impression procedure (R [resin] group); and in the third group, square impression copings previously airborne-particle abraded and coated with the manufacturer-recommended impression adhesive were used (M [modified] group). Matching implant replicas were screwed into the square impression copings in the impressions. Impressions were poured with ADA type IV stone (New Fujirock). A single calibrated examiner blinded to the nature of the impression technique used examined all definitive casts to evaluate the positional accuracy (μm) of the implant replica heads using a profile projector (at original magnification ×10). These measurements were compared to the measurements calculated on the reference resin model which served as control. Data were analyzed with a 1-way analysis of variance at α=.05, followed by the Student Newman-Keuls test (α=.05). The data obtained with the profile projector revealed significant differences within the 3 impression techniques (P

Get free article suggestions today

Mendeley saves you time finding and organizing research

Sign up here
Already have an account ?Sign in

Find this document

Get full text

Authors

Cite this document

Choose a citation style from the tabs below

Save time finding and organizing research with Mendeley

Sign up for free