Alvin G Wee1, Ansgar C Cheng, Ryan N Eskridge. 1. Section of Restorative Dentistry, Prosthodontics and Endodontics, College of Dentistry, The Ohio State University, Columbus, Ohio, 43210-9422, USA. Wee.12@osu.edu
Abstract
STATEMENT OF PROBLEM: Given that meticulous implant prosthodontic procedures are recommended to obtain the best possible intraoral fit, the die systems used for multi-implant casts warrant further investigation. PURPOSE. The purpose of this in vitro study was to compare the accuracy of implant casts fabricated from 3 conceptually different die systems at the solid, sectioned, and repeated stages. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Thirty direct transfer implant impressions were made of the master cast with a polyether impression material. Ten experimental implant casts were fabricated for each of the 3 different die systems tested: double-pour (Pindex), plastic base (DVA), and die tray (KO Tray). The solid experimental casts were sectioned and then removed from the die system 30 times. Linear distances between steel balls placed on each abutment replica were measured with a traveling microscope to determine the accuracy of the experimental casts at different stages. Data were analyzed with repeated-measures analysis of variance (alpha=.05) and the post hoc Ryan-Einot-Gabriel-Welsch multiple-range test (REGWQ). RESULTS: Repeated-measures analysis of variance revealed a significant interaction between the die systems and different stages (P=.0432). REGWQ showed the die tray system to be significantly more accurate at the solid than at the sectioned and repeated stages. The die tray system was significantly less accurate than the double-pour and plastic base systems at the sectioned stage. CONCLUSION: Within the limitations of this study, the use of a double-pour or plastic base die system is recommended when sectioned dies are needed for a multi-implant-retained prosthesis.
STATEMENT OF PROBLEM: Given that meticulous implant prosthodontic procedures are recommended to obtain the best possible intraoral fit, the die systems used for multi-implant casts warrant further investigation. PURPOSE. The purpose of this in vitro study was to compare the accuracy of implant casts fabricated from 3 conceptually different die systems at the solid, sectioned, and repeated stages. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Thirty direct transfer implant impressions were made of the master cast with a polyether impression material. Ten experimental implant casts were fabricated for each of the 3 different die systems tested: double-pour (Pindex), plastic base (DVA), and die tray (KO Tray). The solid experimental casts were sectioned and then removed from the die system 30 times. Linear distances between steel balls placed on each abutment replica were measured with a traveling microscope to determine the accuracy of the experimental casts at different stages. Data were analyzed with repeated-measures analysis of variance (alpha=.05) and the post hoc Ryan-Einot-Gabriel-Welsch multiple-range test (REGWQ). RESULTS: Repeated-measures analysis of variance revealed a significant interaction between the die systems and different stages (P=.0432). REGWQ showed the die tray system to be significantly more accurate at the solid than at the sectioned and repeated stages. The die tray system was significantly less accurate than the double-pour and plastic base systems at the sectioned stage. CONCLUSION: Within the limitations of this study, the use of a double-pour or plastic base die system is recommended when sectioned dies are needed for a multi-implant-retained prosthesis.