Comparative accuracy of new implant impression technique using abutments as impression copings with an angulated implant model.
- Author:
Hyeok Jae LEE
1
;
Chang Whe KIM
;
Young Jun LIM
;
Myung Joo KIM
Author Information
1. Department of Prosthodontics, College of Dentistry, Seoul National University, Seoul, Korea. silk1@snu.ac.kr
- Publication Type:Original Article
- Keywords:
Implant impression;
Angulation;
Abutment;
Cementation
- MeSH:
Cementation;
Light;
Resin Cements;
Silicones;
Splints
- From:The Journal of Korean Academy of Prosthodontics
2008;46(2):201-208
- CountryRepublic of Korea
- Language:Korean
-
Abstract:
STATEMENT OF PROBLEM: A new implant impression technique which use abutments as impression coping, and use resin cement as a splinting material was described. Accuracy of this technique was compared with conventional closed tray and resin splinted open tray technique for a 15degrees angled 3-implant model MATERIAL AND METHODS: A dental stone master model with 3 linearly positioned implant analogue and a reference framework which was passively fitted to it were fabricated. The center analogue was perpendicular to the plane of model and the outer analogues had a 15degrees angulation forward or backward. 10 closed tray impressions, 10 resin splinted open tray impressions, 10 abutment-resin framework cementation impressions and 10 abutment-metal framework cementation impressions were made with additional silicone material and poured with dental stone. A light microscope with image processing was used to record the vertical gap dimension between reference framework and analogue of duplicated cast made with each 4 impression techniques. Statistical analysis used one-way ANOVA with post-hoc tests Tukey test of .05 level of significance RESULTS: Significant difference in the vertical gap dimension was found between closed tray technique; 74.3 (+/-33.4)micrometer and resin splinted open tray technique, and two other new technique. (P>.05) Abutment-metal framework cementation technique;42.5 (+/-11.9)micrometer was significantly different from resin splinted open tray technique. (P<.05) Abutmentresin framework cementation technique;51.0 (+/-14.1)micrometer did not differ significantly from resin splinted open tray technique;50.3 (+/-16.9)micrometer. (P>.05) CONCLUSION: Within limitations of this study, the accuracy of implant level impressions of resin splinted open tray technique was superior to that of closed tray technique. A new technique using abutment and metal framework cementation was more accurate than resin splinted open tray technique.
