We are using cookies to implement functions like login, shopping cart or language selection for this website. Furthermore we use Google Analytics to create anonymized statistical reports of the usage which creates Cookies too. You will find more information in our privacy policy.
OK, I agree I do not want Google Analytics-Cookies
Quintessence International
Login:
username:

password:

Plattform:

Forgotten password?

Registration

Quintessence Int 43 (2012), No. 2     15. Jan. 2012
Quintessence Int 43 (2012), No. 2  (15.01.2012)

Page 119-125, PubMed:22257873


Passive fit and accuracy of three dental implant impression techniques
Al Quran, Firas A. / Rashdan, Bashar A. / Zomar, Abdel Rahman A. Abu / Weiner, Saul
Objective: To reassess the accuracy of three impression techniques relative to the passive fit of the prosthesis.
Method and Materials: An edentulous maxillary cast was fabricated in epoxy resin with four dental implants embedded and secured with heat-cured acrylic resin. Three techniques were tested: closed tray, open tray nonsplinted, and open tray splinted. One light-cured custom acrylic tray was fabricated for each impression technique, and transfer copings were attached to the implants. Fifteen impressions for each technique were prepared with medium-bodied consistency polyether. Subsequently, the impressions were poured in type IV die stone. The distances between the implants were measured using a digital micrometer. The statistical analysis of the data was performed with ANOVA and a one-sample t test at a 95% confidence interval.
Results: The lowest mean difference in dimensional accuracy was found within the direct (open tray) splinted technique. Also, the one-sample t test showed that the direct splinted technique has the least statistical significant difference from direct nonsplinted and indirect (closed tray) techniques. All discrepancies were less than 100 µm.
Conclusion: Within the limitations of this study, the best accuracy of the definitive prosthesis was achieved when the impression copings were splinted with autopolymerized acrylic resin, sectioned, and rejoined. However, the errors associated with all of these techniques were less than 100 µm, and based on the current definitions of passive fit, they all would be clinically acceptable.

Keywords: dental implants, impression techniques, passive fit