BACKGROUND: With regard to implant-supported prostheses, to date no technique has been proven to guarantee a completely passive fit of prosthetic frameworks. Several clinical variables may affect the precision of impressions, particularly in the presence of implants. PURPOSE: To compare the accuracy of implant impressions made with different materials, lengths of impression coping connections, and not parallel position of the implants. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A calibrated testing device allowing reproducible standardized positions was used. Two control groups of master models and eight experimental groups with predetermined undercuts were used to make addition silicon and polyether implant impressions by means of the open-tray pick-up technique. Four reference distances were evaluated on each study cast by using a profile projector and a standardized measurement protocol. The data were statistically analyzed by means of three-factor analysis of variance. RESULTS: The impressions made in the presence of angulated implants were significantly less accurate than the ones made with parallel implants. The tested addition silicon resulted advantageous in presence of nonparallel implants whereas the polyether achieved the best results with parallel implants and standard impression copings. CONCLUSIONS: The angulation of the implants may cause strains of impressions, probably because of the higher forces required for the impression removal. Moreover, undercuts negatively affected the impression accuracy. More accurate casts were obtained using the tested addition silicon in the presence of nonparallel implants and using a standard length connection of the copings in the presence of parallel implants, respectively.
BACKGROUND: With regard to implant-supported prostheses, to date no technique has been proven to guarantee a completely passive fit of prosthetic frameworks. Several clinical variables may affect the precision of impressions, particularly in the presence of implants. PURPOSE: To compare the accuracy of implant impressions made with different materials, lengths of impression coping connections, and not parallel position of the implants. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A calibrated testing device allowing reproducible standardized positions was used. Two control groups of master models and eight experimental groups with predetermined undercuts were used to make addition silicon and polyether implant impressions by means of the open-tray pick-up technique. Four reference distances were evaluated on each study cast by using a profile projector and a standardized measurement protocol. The data were statistically analyzed by means of three-factor analysis of variance. RESULTS: The impressions made in the presence of angulated implants were significantly less accurate than the ones made with parallel implants. The tested addition silicon resulted advantageous in presence of nonparallel implants whereas the polyether achieved the best results with parallel implants and standard impression copings. CONCLUSIONS: The angulation of the implants may cause strains of impressions, probably because of the higher forces required for the impression removal. Moreover, undercuts negatively affected the impression accuracy. More accurate casts were obtained using the tested addition silicon in the presence of nonparallel implants and using a standard length connection of the copings in the presence of parallel implants, respectively.