Adolfo Di Fiore1,2, Roberto Meneghello3, Gianpaolo Savio3, Stefano Sivolella4, Joannis Katsoulis5,6, Edoardo Stellini7. 1. Department of Prosthodontics, Dental School, University of Padova, Padova, Italy. 2. Mechatronics and Product Innovation Engineering, Department of Management and Engineering, University of Padova, Padova, Italy. 3. Departments of Civil, Environmental and Architectural Engineering, University of Padova, Padova, Italy. 4. Departments of Oral Surgery, Dental School, University of Padova, Padova, Italy. 5. Department of Reconstructive Dentistry and Gerodontology, School of Dental Medicine, University of Bern, Bern, Switzerland. 6. Department of Preventive and Restorative Sciences, University of Pennsylvania School of Dental Medicine, Philadelphia, PA, USA. 7. Dental School, University of Padova, Padova, Italy.
Abstract
PURPOSE: The study aims to evaluate three-dimensionally (3D) the accuracy of implant impressions using a new resin splinting material, "Smart Dentin Replacement" (SDR). MATERIALS AND METHODS: A titanium model of an edentulous mandible with six implant analogues was used as a master model and its dimensions measured with a coordinate measuring machine. Before the total 60 impressions were taken (open tray, screw-retained abutments, vinyl polysiloxane), they were divided in four groups: A (test): copings pick-up splinted with dental floss and fotopolymerizing SDR; B (test): see A, additionally sectioned and splinted again with SDR; C (control): copings pick-up splinted with dental floss and autopolymerizing Duralay® (Reliance Dental Mfg. Co., Alsip, IL, USA) acrylic resin; and D (control): see C, additionally sectioned and splinted again with Duralay. The impressions were measured directly with an optomechanical coordinate measuring machine and analyzed with a computer-aided design (CAD) geometric modeling software. The Wilcoxon matched-pair signed-rank test was used to compare groups. RESULTS: While there was no difference (p = .430) between the mean 3D deviations of the test groups A (17.5 μm) and B (17.4 μm), they both showed statistically significant differences (p < .003) compared with both control groups (C 25.0 μm, D 19.1 μm). CONCLUSIONS: Conventional impression techniques for edentulous jaws with multiple implants are highly accurate using the new fotopolymerizing splinting material SDR. Sectioning and rejoining of the SDR splinting had no impact on the impression accuracy.
PURPOSE: The study aims to evaluate three-dimensionally (3D) the accuracy of implant impressions using a new resin splinting material, "Smart Dentin Replacement" (SDR). MATERIALS AND METHODS: A titanium model of an edentulous mandible with six implant analogues was used as a master model and its dimensions measured with a coordinate measuring machine. Before the total 60 impressions were taken (open tray, screw-retained abutments, vinyl polysiloxane), they were divided in four groups: A (test): copings pick-up splinted with dental floss and fotopolymerizing SDR; B (test): see A, additionally sectioned and splinted again with SDR; C (control): copings pick-up splinted with dental floss and autopolymerizing Duralay® (Reliance Dental Mfg. Co., Alsip, IL, USA) acrylic resin; and D (control): see C, additionally sectioned and splinted again with Duralay. The impressions were measured directly with an optomechanical coordinate measuring machine and analyzed with a computer-aided design (CAD) geometric modeling software. The Wilcoxon matched-pair signed-rank test was used to compare groups. RESULTS: While there was no difference (p = .430) between the mean 3D deviations of the test groups A (17.5 μm) and B (17.4 μm), they both showed statistically significant differences (p < .003) compared with both control groups (C 25.0 μm, D 19.1 μm). CONCLUSIONS: Conventional impression techniques for edentulous jaws with multiple implants are highly accurate using the new fotopolymerizing splinting material SDR. Sectioning and rejoining of the SDR splinting had no impact on the impression accuracy.
Authors: Adolfo Di Fiore; Lorenzo Graiff; Gianpaolo Savio; Stefano Granata; Michele Basilicata; Patrizio Bollero; Roberto Meneghello Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health Date: 2022-04-13 Impact factor: 4.614