Gillian Brewer Alexander Hazboun1, Radi Masri2, Elaine Romberg3, Joanna Kempler4, Carl F Driscoll5. 1. Former Resident, Advanced Specialty Education in Prosthodontics, Department of Endodontics, Prosthodontics, and Operative Dentistry, School of Dentistry, University of Maryland, Baltimore, Md. 2. Associate Professor, Department of Endodontics, Prosthodontics, and Operative Dentistry, School of Dentistry, University of Maryland, Baltimore, Md. Electronic address: rmasri@maryland.edu. 3. Professor Emerita, Department of Orthodontics and Pediatric Dentistry, School of Dentistry, University of Maryland, Baltimore, Md. 4. Clinical Assistant Professor, Department of Endodontics, Prosthodontics, and Operative Dentistry, School of Dentistry, University of Maryland, Baltimore, Md. 5. Program Director and Professor, Advanced Specialty Education in Prosthodontics, Department of Endodontics, Prosthodontics, and Operative Dentistry, School of Dentistry, University of Maryland, Baltimore, Md.
Abstract
STATEMENT OF PROBLEM: How the configuration of the NobelActive internal conical connection affects implant impressions is uncertain. PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to measure the effect in vitro of closed and open tray impression techniques for NobelActive implants placed at various angulations. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Six NobelActive implants were placed in a master maxillary cast as follows: 0 degrees of angulation to a line drawn perpendicular to the occlusal plane in the first molar area, 15 degrees of angulation to a line drawn perpendicular to the occlusal plane in the first premolar area, and 30 degrees of angulation to a line drawn perpendicular to the occlusal plane in the lateral incisor area. Twelve open tray and 12 closed tray impressions were made. Occlusal, lateral, and frontal view photographs of the resulting casts were used to measure the linear and angular displacement of implant analogs. Statistical analysis was performed with a factorial analysis of variance (ANOVA), followed by the Tukey HSD test (α=.05). RESULTS: No significant difference was found in the impressions made of NobelActive implants with the open or closed tray technique (linear displacement: F=0.93, P=.34; angular displacement: F=2.09, P=.15). In addition, implant angulation (0, 15, or 30 degrees) had no effect on the linear or angular displacement of impressions (linear displacement: F=2.72, P=.07; angular displacement: F=0.86, P=.43). Finally, no significant interaction was found between impression technique and implant angulation on NobelActive implants (F=0.25, P=.77; F=1.60, P=.20). CONCLUSIONS: Within the limitations of this study, impression technique (open vs closed tray) and implant angulation (0, 15, and 30 degrees) had no significant effect on in vitro impressions of NobelActive implants.
STATEMENT OF PROBLEM: How the configuration of the NobelActive internal conical connection affects implant impressions is uncertain. PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to measure the effect in vitro of closed and open tray impression techniques for NobelActive implants placed at various angulations. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Six NobelActive implants were placed in a master maxillary cast as follows: 0 degrees of angulation to a line drawn perpendicular to the occlusal plane in the first molar area, 15 degrees of angulation to a line drawn perpendicular to the occlusal plane in the first premolar area, and 30 degrees of angulation to a line drawn perpendicular to the occlusal plane in the lateral incisor area. Twelve open tray and 12 closed tray impressions were made. Occlusal, lateral, and frontal view photographs of the resulting casts were used to measure the linear and angular displacement of implant analogs. Statistical analysis was performed with a factorial analysis of variance (ANOVA), followed by the Tukey HSD test (α=.05). RESULTS: No significant difference was found in the impressions made of NobelActive implants with the open or closed tray technique (linear displacement: F=0.93, P=.34; angular displacement: F=2.09, P=.15). In addition, implant angulation (0, 15, or 30 degrees) had no effect on the linear or angular displacement of impressions (linear displacement: F=2.72, P=.07; angular displacement: F=0.86, P=.43). Finally, no significant interaction was found between impression technique and implant angulation on NobelActive implants (F=0.25, P=.77; F=1.60, P=.20). CONCLUSIONS: Within the limitations of this study, impression technique (open vs closed tray) and implant angulation (0, 15, and 30 degrees) had no significant effect on in vitro impressions of NobelActive implants.