Mirza R Baig1, Muaiyed M Buzayan2, Norsiah Yunus3. 1. Department of Restorative Sciences, Faculty of Dentistry, Kuwait University, Jabriya, Safat, Kuwait. 2. Department of Prosthodontics, Faculty of Dentistry, SEGi University, Selangor, Malaysia. 3. Department of Restorative Dentistry, Faculty of Dentistry, University Malaya, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia.
Abstract
AIM: The aim of the present study was to assess the accuracy of multi-unit dental implant casts obtained from two elastomeric impression materials, vinyl polyether silicone (VPES) and polyether (PE), and to test the effect of splinting of impression copings on the accuracy of implant casts. METHODS: Forty direct impressions of a mandibular reference model fitted with six dental implants and multibase abutments were made using VPES and PE, and implant casts were poured (N = 20). The VPES and PE groups were split into four subgroups of five each, based on splinting type: (a) no splinting; (b) bite registration polyether; (c) bite registration addition silicone; and (d) autopolymerizing acrylic resin. The accuracy of implant-abutment replica positions was calculated on the experimental casts, in terms of interimplant distances in the x, y, and z-axes, using a coordinate measuring machine; values were compared with those measured on the reference model. Data were analyzed using non-parametrical Kruskal-Wallis and Mann-Whitney tests at α = .05. RESULTS: The differences between the two impression materials, VPES and PE, regardless of splinting type, were not statistically significant (P>.05). Non-splinting and splinting groups were also not significantly different for both PE and VPES (P>.05). CONCLUSIONS: The accuracy of VPES impression material seemed comparable with PE for multi-implant abutment-level impressions. Splinting had no effect on the accuracy of implant impressions.
AIM: The aim of the present study was to assess the accuracy of multi-unit dental implant casts obtained from two elastomeric impression materials, vinyl polyether silicone (VPES) and polyether (PE), and to test the effect of splinting of impression copings on the accuracy of implant casts. METHODS: Forty direct impressions of a mandibular reference model fitted with six dental implants and multibase abutments were made using VPES and PE, and implant casts were poured (N = 20). The VPES and PE groups were split into four subgroups of five each, based on splinting type: (a) no splinting; (b) bite registration polyether; (c) bite registration addition silicone; and (d) autopolymerizing acrylic resin. The accuracy of implant-abutment replica positions was calculated on the experimental casts, in terms of interimplant distances in the x, y, and z-axes, using a coordinate measuring machine; values were compared with those measured on the reference model. Data were analyzed using non-parametrical Kruskal-Wallis and Mann-Whitney tests at α = .05. RESULTS: The differences between the two impression materials, VPES and PE, regardless of splinting type, were not statistically significant (P>.05). Non-splinting and splinting groups were also not significantly different for both PE and VPES (P>.05). CONCLUSIONS: The accuracy of VPES impression material seemed comparable with PE for multi-implant abutment-level impressions. Splinting had no effect on the accuracy of implant impressions.