PURPOSE: Implant impressions and working models form integrated precision systems for registration and transmission of clinical data. The components of implant systems have a dimensional tolerance capable of introducing inaccuracies in the impression, thus in the prosthetic framework. This article aimed at comparing 2 repositioning impression techniques: one using impression copings (conventional technique) and the other using the final abutments as impression copings (interceptive technique). MATERIALS AND METHODS: Two experimental models, one with 4 parallel implants and the other with 4 nonparallel implants, were used to make silicone impressions. Twenty impressions were made with the conventional technique, and a further 20 were made with the interceptive technique. Three-dimensional images acquired with a three-dimensional scanner were measured using a three-dimensional image analysis software, comparing models obtained from the impressions with the experimental models. Data were statistically analyzed by means of confidence intervals calculated with the mean (α = 0.05), descriptive (box plot), and bivariate analyses. RESULTS: Statistic analysis highlighted significant differences among models obtained using both techniques: the interceptive technique generated working models with less distortion and variability. CONCLUSIONS: For internal-connection implants, the interceptive technique provided significantly more precise working models than did the conventional technique.
PURPOSE: Implant impressions and working models form integrated precision systems for registration and transmission of clinical data. The components of implant systems have a dimensional tolerance capable of introducing inaccuracies in the impression, thus in the prosthetic framework. This article aimed at comparing 2 repositioning impression techniques: one using impression copings (conventional technique) and the other using the final abutments as impression copings (interceptive technique). MATERIALS AND METHODS: Two experimental models, one with 4 parallel implants and the other with 4 nonparallel implants, were used to make silicone impressions. Twenty impressions were made with the conventional technique, and a further 20 were made with the interceptive technique. Three-dimensional images acquired with a three-dimensional scanner were measured using a three-dimensional image analysis software, comparing models obtained from the impressions with the experimental models. Data were statistically analyzed by means of confidence intervals calculated with the mean (α = 0.05), descriptive (box plot), and bivariate analyses. RESULTS: Statistic analysis highlighted significant differences among models obtained using both techniques: the interceptive technique generated working models with less distortion and variability. CONCLUSIONS: For internal-connection implants, the interceptive technique provided significantly more precise working models than did the conventional technique.