Literature DB >> 12644799

Accuracy of open tray implant impressions: an in vitro comparison of stock versus custom trays.

Jason Burns1, Richard Palmer, Leslie Howe, Ron Wilson.   

Abstract

STATEMENT OF PROBLEM: The accuracy of an implant fixture-level impression is affected by the type of impression tray used.
PURPOSE: The purpose of this in vitro study was to investigate the accuracy of open tray implant impressions comparing polycarbonate stock impression trays and rigid custom-made impression trays to make implant fixture-level impressions.
MATERIAL AND METHODS: Gold cylinder pairs, splinted by gold bars (reference frameworks) were constructed on an aluminum typodont. Polyether impressions were made of 2 pairs of Brånemark 3.75-mm diameter fixtures mounted in an aluminium typodont, with 3 stock impression trays, 3 close-fit custom trays, and 3 spaced custom impression trays, by use of an open tray technique. The casts produced were assessed for accuracy by attaching the reference frameworks with alternate single screws and measuring the vertical fit discrepancy of these reference frameworks to the analogs within the working cast using a traveling microscope. Comparison of gap dimensions by tray type was performed with a nonparametric Kruskal-Wallis analysis of variance (ANOVA) followed by pair-wise Mann-Whitney U tests. To adjust for multiple comparisons in the post-ANOVA contrasts (P<.02). Comparison of gap dimensions between anterior and posterior regions were performed with Mann-Whitney U tests (P <.05).
RESULTS: The results showed that the mean fit accuracy, as measured by vertical fit discrepancy, of casts from the stock trays (23 +/- 20 microm) were statistically significantly less (P<.001) than the spaced custom trays (12 +/- 10 microm) or close fit custom trays (11 +/- 10 microm). The difference in median gap size for analogs with a 20-mm separation was 10 microm.
CONCLUSION: Within the limits of this in vitro study, rigid custom trays produced significantly more accurate impressions than the polycarbonate stock trays. The stock trays used in this study could not produce accurate impressions consistently. For analogs with a 20-mm separation, there was a difference in medians of 10 microm in accuracy between the stock and custom trays.

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2003        PMID: 12644799     DOI: 10.1067/mpr.2003.38

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Prosthet Dent        ISSN: 0022-3913            Impact factor:   3.426


  13 in total

Review 1.  Passive Fit in Screw Retained Multi-unit Implant Prosthesis Understanding and Achieving: A Review of the Literature.

Authors:  Muaiyed Mahmoud Buzayan; Norsiah Binti Yunus
Journal:  J Indian Prosthodont Soc       Date:  2013-12-28

2.  Evaluation of accuracy of direct transfer snapon impression coping closed tray impression technique and direct transfer open tray impression technique: an in vitro study.

Authors:  T Balamurugan; P Manimaran
Journal:  J Indian Prosthodont Soc       Date:  2012-08-19

3.  Accuracy of multi-unit implant impression: traditional techniques versus a digital procedure.

Authors:  Maria Menini; Paolo Setti; Francesco Pera; Paolo Pera; Paolo Pesce
Journal:  Clin Oral Investig       Date:  2017-09-30       Impact factor: 3.573

4.  Effect of impression coping and implant angulation on the accuracy of implant impressions: an in vitro study.

Authors:  Si-Hoon Jo; Kyoung-Il Kim; Jae-Min Seo; Kwang-Yeob Song; Ju-Mi Park; Seung-Geun Ahn
Journal:  J Adv Prosthodont       Date:  2010-12-31       Impact factor: 1.904

5.  Accuracy of five implant impression technique: effect of splinting materials and methods.

Authors:  Sang-Jik Lee; Sung-Bum Cho
Journal:  J Adv Prosthodont       Date:  2011-12-28       Impact factor: 1.904

6.  In Vitro Comparative Evaluation of Different Types of Impression Trays and Impression Materials on the Accuracy of Open Tray Implant Impressions: A Pilot Study.

Authors:  Sonam Gupta; Aparna Ichalangod Narayan; Dhanasekar Balakrishnan
Journal:  Int J Dent       Date:  2017-02-27

7.  Accuracy of different impression materials in parallel and nonparallel implants.

Authors:  Mahroo Vojdani; Kianoosh Torabi; Elham Ansarifard
Journal:  Dent Res J (Isfahan)       Date:  2015 Jul-Aug

8.  Comparison of digital and conventional impression techniques: evaluation of patients' perception, treatment comfort, effectiveness and clinical outcomes.

Authors:  Emir Yuzbasioglu; Hanefi Kurt; Rana Turunc; Halenur Bilir
Journal:  BMC Oral Health       Date:  2014-01-30       Impact factor: 2.757

9.  A comparative analysis of the accuracy of implant master casts fabricated from two different transfer impression techniques.

Authors:  Rupali Patil; Pankaj Kadam; Chetan Oswal; Seema Patil; Shweta Jajoo; Arati Gachake
Journal:  J Int Soc Prev Community Dent       Date:  2016 Mar-Apr

10.  Changes in views on digital intraoral scanners among dental hygienists after training in digital impression taking.

Authors:  Hye-Ran Park; Ji-Man Park; Youn-Sic Chun; Kkot-Nim Lee; Minji Kim
Journal:  BMC Oral Health       Date:  2015-11-27       Impact factor: 2.757

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.