Renata Vasconcellos Moura1, Alberto Noriyuki Kojima2, Cintia Helena Coury Saraceni1, Lucas Bassolli3, Ivan Balducci4, Mutlu Özcan5, Alfredo Mikail Melo Mesquita1. 1. Department of Prosthodontics, Universidade Paulista, São Paulo, Brazil. 2. Department of Dental Materials and Prosthodontics, UNESP SJC, São José dos Campos, Brazil. 3. Department of Cardiovascular and Thoracic Surgery, Universidade de São Paulo, Brazil. 4. Department of Social Dentistry, São Paulo State University, São José dos Campos, Brazil. 5. University of Zurich, Dental Materials Unit, Center for Dental Medicine, Clinic for Fixed and Removable Prosthodontics and Dental Materials Science, Zurich, Switzerland.
Abstract
PURPOSE: The increased use of CAD systems can generate doubt about the accuracy of digital impressions for angulated implants. The aim of this study was to evaluate the accuracy of different impression techniques, two conventional and one digital, for implants with and without angulation. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We used a polyurethane cast that simulates the human maxilla according to ASTM F1839, and 6 tapered implants were installed with external hexagonal connections to simulate tooth positions 17, 15, 12, 23, 25, and 27. Implants 17 and 23 were placed with 15° of mesial angulation and distal angulation, respectively. Mini cone abutments were installed on these implants with a metal strap 1 mm in height. Conventional and digital impression procedures were performed on the maxillary master cast, and the implants were separated into 6 groups based on the technique used and measurement type: G1 - control, G2 - digital impression, G3 - conventional impression with an open tray, G4 - conventional impression with a closed tray, G5 - conventional impression with an open tray and a digital impression, and G6 - conventional impression with a closed tray and a digital impression. A statistical analysis was performed using two-way repeated measures ANOVA to compare the groups, and a Kruskal-Wallis test was conducted to analyze the accuracy of the techniques. RESULTS: No significant difference in the accuracy of the techniques was observed between the groups. Therefore, no differences were found among the conventional impression and the combination of conventional and digital impressions, and the angulation of the implants did not affect the accuracy of the techniques. CONCLUSIONS: All of the techniques exhibited trueness and had acceptable precision. The variation of the angle of the implants did not affect the accuracy of the techniques.
PURPOSE: The increased use of CAD systems can generate doubt about the accuracy of digital impressions for angulated implants. The aim of this study was to evaluate the accuracy of different impression techniques, two conventional and one digital, for implants with and without angulation. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We used a polyurethane cast that simulates the human maxilla according to ASTM F1839, and 6 tapered implants were installed with external hexagonal connections to simulate tooth positions 17, 15, 12, 23, 25, and 27. Implants 17 and 23 were placed with 15° of mesial angulation and distal angulation, respectively. Mini cone abutments were installed on these implants with a metal strap 1 mm in height. Conventional and digital impression procedures were performed on the maxillary master cast, and the implants were separated into 6 groups based on the technique used and measurement type: G1 - control, G2 - digital impression, G3 - conventional impression with an open tray, G4 - conventional impression with a closed tray, G5 - conventional impression with an open tray and a digital impression, and G6 - conventional impression with a closed tray and a digital impression. A statistical analysis was performed using two-way repeated measures ANOVA to compare the groups, and a Kruskal-Wallis test was conducted to analyze the accuracy of the techniques. RESULTS: No significant difference in the accuracy of the techniques was observed between the groups. Therefore, no differences were found among the conventional impression and the combination of conventional and digital impressions, and the angulation of the implants did not affect the accuracy of the techniques. CONCLUSIONS: All of the techniques exhibited trueness and had acceptable precision. The variation of the angle of the implants did not affect the accuracy of the techniques.
Authors: María Isabel Albanchez-González; Jorge Cortés-Bretón Brinkmann; Jesús Peláez-Rico; Carlos López-Suárez; Verónica Rodríguez-Alonso; María Jesús Suárez-García Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health Date: 2022-02-11 Impact factor: 3.390