Alireza Izadi1, Bijan Heidari2, Ghodratollah Roshanaei3, Hanif Allahbakhshi4, Farnoush Fotovat5. 1. Department of Prosthodontics, Faculty of Dentistry, Dental Research Center, Hamedan University of Medical Sciences Hamadan, Islamic Republic of Iran. 2. Department of Prosthodontics, Faculty of Dentistry, Shahid Beheshti University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Islamic Republic of Iran. 3. Department of Biostatistics, Faculty of Health, Hamadan University of Medical Sciences, Hamadan, Islamic Republic of Iran. 4. Department of Prosthodontics, Faculty of Dentistry, Kashan University of Medical Science, Kashan, Islamic Republic of Iran. 5. Department of Prosthodontics, Faculty of Dentistry, Hamadan University of Medical Science, Hamadan, Islamic Republic of Iran, Phone: +989188185838, e-mail: ffotovat67@yahoo.com.
Abstract
AIM: Several impression techniques have been proposed to result passive fitness between the prosthesis and osseointe-grated implant. The aim of the study was to compare dimensional accuracy of three impression methods: Open tray, closed tray with impression coping, and closed tray with snap cap. MATERIALS AND METHODS: In this experimental study, a mandibular acrylic model was prepared with a milling machine to place three holes for dental implant analogs (Dio SM) with the dimension of 3.8 × 10 mm into the intended sites (one in midline and two others on the side at a distance of 10 mm) parallel with each other and perpendicular to the plane. Twenty-seven casts were prepared with impression material of polyvinyl siloxane (PVS) and dental stone type IV and divided into three groups. Implant situations were measured by coordinate measuring machine (CMM) and results were analyzed with Kruskal-Wallis and Mann-Whitney test to perform pairwise comparison among the groups. RESULTS: The mean ΔR values for open tray, closed tray with impression coping, and closed tray with snap cap were respectively, 0.070 ± 0.088, 0.173 ± 0.205, and 0.142 ± 0.044. There were statistically significant differences between open tray and closed tray as well as open tray and snap cap methods (p < 0.05), but there was no statistically significant difference between closed tray and snap cap method (p = 0.1). CONCLUSION: Regarding the results, open tray impression technique had the highest dimensional accuracy compared with the other two methods. There were no statically significant differences between closed tray with snap cap and closed tray with impression coping technique. CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE: Snap cap technique is less time consuming with similar dimensional accuracy in comparison with open tray impression technique.
AIM: Several impression techniques have been proposed to result passive fitness between the prosthesis and osseointe-grated implant. The aim of the study was to compare dimensional accuracy of three impression methods: Open tray, closed tray with impression coping, and closed tray with snap cap. MATERIALS AND METHODS: In this experimental study, a mandibular acrylic model was prepared with a milling machine to place three holes for dental implant analogs (Dio SM) with the dimension of 3.8 × 10 mm into the intended sites (one in midline and two others on the side at a distance of 10 mm) parallel with each other and perpendicular to the plane. Twenty-seven casts were prepared with impression material of polyvinyl siloxane (PVS) and dental stone type IV and divided into three groups. Implant situations were measured by coordinate measuring machine (CMM) and results were analyzed with Kruskal-Wallis and Mann-Whitney test to perform pairwise comparison among the groups. RESULTS: The mean ΔR values for open tray, closed tray with impression coping, and closed tray with snap cap were respectively, 0.070 ± 0.088, 0.173 ± 0.205, and 0.142 ± 0.044. There were statistically significant differences between open tray and closed tray as well as open tray and snap cap methods (p < 0.05), but there was no statistically significant difference between closed tray and snap cap method (p = 0.1). CONCLUSION: Regarding the results, open tray impression technique had the highest dimensional accuracy compared with the other two methods. There were no statically significant differences between closed tray with snap cap and closed tray with impression coping technique. CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE: Snap cap technique is less time consuming with similar dimensional accuracy in comparison with open tray impression technique.