Literature DB >> 22009182

Evaluation of impression accuracy for a four-implant mandibular model--a digital approach.

Michael Stimmelmayr1, Kurt Erdelt, Jan-Frederik Güth, Arndt Happe, Florian Beuer.   

Abstract

Implant-supported prosthodontics requires precise impressions to achieve a passive fit. Since the early 1990s, in vitro studies comparing different implant impression techniques were performed, capturing the data mostly mechanically. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the accuracy of three different impression techniques digitally. Dental implants were inserted bilaterally in ten polymer lower-arch models at the positions of the first molars and canines. From each original model, three different impressions (A, transfer; B, pick-up; and C, splinted pick-up) were taken. Scan-bodies were mounted on the implants of the polymer and on the lab analogues of the stone models and digitized. The scan-body in position 36 (FDI) of the digitized original and master casts were each superimposed, and the deviations of the remaining three scan-bodies were measured three-dimensionally. The systematic error of digitizing the models was 13 μm for the polymer and 5 μm for the stone model. The mean discrepancies of the original model to the stone casts were 124 μm (±34) μm for the transfer technique, 116 (±46) μm for the pick-up technique, and 80 (±25) μm for the splinted pick-up technique. There were statistically significant discrepancies between the evaluated impression techniques (p ≤ 0.025; ANOVA test). The splinted pick-up impression showed the least deviation between original and stone model; transfer and pick-up techniques showed similar results. For better accuracy of implant-supported prosthodontics, the splinted pick-up technique should be used for impressions of four implants evenly spread in edentulous jaws.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2011        PMID: 22009182     DOI: 10.1007/s00784-011-0622-z

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Clin Oral Investig        ISSN: 1432-6981            Impact factor:   3.573


  46 in total

1.  Comparative accuracy of implant impression procedures.

Authors:  D Assif; A Fenton; G Zarb; A Schmitt
Journal:  Int J Periodontics Restorative Dent       Date:  1992       Impact factor: 1.840

2.  Evaluation of impression accuracy for implant at various angulations.

Authors:  Wirley Gonçalves Assunção; Rebeca Cavalcante Britto; Valentim Adelino Ricardo Barão; Juliana Aparecida Delben; Paulo Henrique dos Santos
Journal:  Implant Dent       Date:  2010-04       Impact factor: 2.454

3.  Comparison of the three-dimensional correctness of impression techniques: a randomized controlled trial.

Authors:  Ralph Gunnar Luthardt; Michael H Walter; Sebastian Quaas; Rainer Koch; Heike Rudolph
Journal:  Quintessence Int       Date:  2010 Nov-Dec       Impact factor: 1.677

4.  Comparison of impression techniques for a two-implant 15-degree divergent model.

Authors:  A B Carr
Journal:  Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants       Date:  1992       Impact factor: 2.804

5.  Tolerance measurements of various implant components.

Authors:  T Ma; J I Nicholls; J E Rubenstein
Journal:  Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants       Date:  1997 May-Jun       Impact factor: 2.804

6.  An in vivo quantitative analysis of the fit of Nobel Biocare implant superstructures.

Authors:  P D Cheshire; J A Hobkirk
Journal:  J Oral Rehabil       Date:  1996-11       Impact factor: 3.837

7.  Loose gold screws frequently occur in full-arch fixed prostheses supported by osseointegrated implants after 5 years.

Authors:  T Kallus; C Bessing
Journal:  Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants       Date:  1994 Mar-Apr       Impact factor: 2.804

8.  A comparative analysis of the accuracy of implant transfer techniques.

Authors:  C C Hsu; P L Millstein; R S Stein
Journal:  J Prosthet Dent       Date:  1993-06       Impact factor: 3.426

9.  Effects of repeated manual disassembly and reassembly on the positional stability of various implant-abutment complexes: an experimental study.

Authors:  Wiebke Semper; Susanne Heberer; Juergen Mehrhof; Tania Schink; Katja Nelson
Journal:  Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants       Date:  2010 Jan-Feb       Impact factor: 2.804

Review 10.  The accuracy of implant impressions: a systematic review.

Authors:  Heeje Lee; Joseph S So; J L Hochstedler; Carlo Ercoli
Journal:  J Prosthet Dent       Date:  2008-10       Impact factor: 3.426

View more
  7 in total

1.  Computer-aided evaluation of preparations for CAD/CAM-fabricated all-ceramic crowns.

Authors:  Jan-Frederik Güth; Jan Wallbach; Michael Stimmelmayr; Wolfgang Gernet; Florian Beuer; Daniel Edelhoff
Journal:  Clin Oral Investig       Date:  2012-08-07       Impact factor: 3.573

2.  Clinical study evaluating the discrepancy of two different impression techniques of four implants in an edentulous jaw.

Authors:  Michael Stimmelmayr; Jan-Frederik Güth; Kurt Erdelt; Arndt Happe; Markus Schlee; Florian Beuer
Journal:  Clin Oral Investig       Date:  2012-12-06       Impact factor: 3.573

3.  Accuracy of digital versus conventional implant impressions.

Authors:  Sang J Lee; Rebecca A Betensky; Grace E Gianneschi; German O Gallucci
Journal:  Clin Oral Implants Res       Date:  2014-04-10       Impact factor: 5.977

4.  Three-Dimensional Evaluation on Accuracy of Conventional and Milled Gypsum Models and 3D Printed Photopolymer Models.

Authors:  Jae-Won Choi; Jong-Ju Ahn; Keunbada Son; Jung-Bo Huh
Journal:  Materials (Basel)       Date:  2019-10-25       Impact factor: 3.623

5.  Comparison of the Accuracy of Fixture-Level Implant Impression Making with Different Splinting Techniques.

Authors:  Mehrdad Nateghi; Ramin Negahdari; Sahar Molaei; Ali Barzegar; Sepideh Bohlouli
Journal:  Int J Dent       Date:  2021-10-14

6.  Influence of Implant Impression Methods, Polymer Materials, and Implant Angulation on the Accuracy of Dental Models.

Authors:  Daniela Djurovic Koprivica; Tatjana Puskar; Igor Budak; Mario Sokac; Milica Jeremic Knezevic; Aleksandra Maletin; Bojana Milekic; Djordje Vukelic
Journal:  Polymers (Basel)       Date:  2022-07-11       Impact factor: 4.967

7.  Accuracy of new implant impression technique using dual arch tray and bite impression coping.

Authors:  Shin-Eon Lee; Sung-Eun Yang; Cheol-Won Lee; Won-Sup Lee; Su Young Lee
Journal:  J Adv Prosthodont       Date:  2018-08-17       Impact factor: 1.904

  7 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.