J Wang1, H J Yu1, J D Sun2, L X Qiu1. 1. Fourth Clinical Division, Peking University School and Hospital of Stomatology & National Center of Stomatology & National Clinical Research Center for Oral Diseases & National Engineering Laboratory for Digital and Material Technology of Stomatology, Beijing 100081, China. 2. Beijing D&E Medical Limited Company, Dental Digital & Esthetics Laboratory, Beijing 100176, China.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To compare the operation complexity and accuracy of traditional splint impression technique and impression technique with prefabricated rigid connecting bar system for full-arch implants-supported fixed protheses in vitro. METHODS: Standard mandibular edentulous model with six implant analogs was prepared. The implants were placed at the bone level and multiunit abutments screwed into the implants. Two impression techniques were performed: the traditional splint impression technique was used in the control group, and the rigid connecting bar system was used in the test group. In the control group, impression copings were screwed into the multiunit abutments and connected with autopolymerizing acrylic resin. Open tray impression was fabricated with custom tray and polyether. In the test group, cylinders were screwed into the multiunit abutments. Prefabricated rigid bars with suitable length were selected and connected to the cylinders with small amount of autopolymerizing acrylic resin, and open tray impression was obtained. Impression procedures were repeated 6 times in each group. The working time of the two impression methods were recorded and compared. Analogs were screws into the impressions and gypsum casts were poured. The gypsum casts and the standard model were transferred to stereolithography (STL) files with model scanner. Comparative analysis of the STL files of the gypsum casts and the standard model was carried out and the root mean square (RMS) error value of the gypsum casts of the control and test groups compared with the standard model was recorded. The trueness of the two impression techniques was compared. RESULTS: The work time in the test group was significantly lower than that in the control group and the difference was statistically significant [(984.5±63.3) s vs. (1 478.3±156.2) s, P < 0.05]. Compared with the standard model, the RMS error value of the implant abutments in the test group was (16.9±5.5) μm. The RMS value in the control group was (20.2±8.0) μm. The difference between the two groups was not significant (P>0.05). CONCLUSION: The prefabricated rigid connecting bar can save the chair-side work time in implants immediate loading of edentulous jaw and simplify the impression process. The impression accuracy is not significantly different from the traditional impression technology. The impression technique with prefabricated rigid connecting bar system is worthy of clinical application.
OBJECTIVE: To compare the operation complexity and accuracy of traditional splint impression technique and impression technique with prefabricated rigid connecting bar system for full-arch implants-supported fixed protheses in vitro. METHODS: Standard mandibular edentulous model with six implant analogs was prepared. The implants were placed at the bone level and multiunit abutments screwed into the implants. Two impression techniques were performed: the traditional splint impression technique was used in the control group, and the rigid connecting bar system was used in the test group. In the control group, impression copings were screwed into the multiunit abutments and connected with autopolymerizing acrylic resin. Open tray impression was fabricated with custom tray and polyether. In the test group, cylinders were screwed into the multiunit abutments. Prefabricated rigid bars with suitable length were selected and connected to the cylinders with small amount of autopolymerizing acrylic resin, and open tray impression was obtained. Impression procedures were repeated 6 times in each group. The working time of the two impression methods were recorded and compared. Analogs were screws into the impressions and gypsum casts were poured. The gypsum casts and the standard model were transferred to stereolithography (STL) files with model scanner. Comparative analysis of the STL files of the gypsum casts and the standard model was carried out and the root mean square (RMS) error value of the gypsum casts of the control and test groups compared with the standard model was recorded. The trueness of the two impression techniques was compared. RESULTS: The work time in the test group was significantly lower than that in the control group and the difference was statistically significant [(984.5±63.3) s vs. (1 478.3±156.2) s, P < 0.05]. Compared with the standard model, the RMS error value of the implant abutments in the test group was (16.9±5.5) μm. The RMS value in the control group was (20.2±8.0) μm. The difference between the two groups was not significant (P>0.05). CONCLUSION: The prefabricated rigid connecting bar can save the chair-side work time in implants immediate loading of edentulous jaw and simplify the impression process. The impression accuracy is not significantly different from the traditional impression technology. The impression technique with prefabricated rigid connecting bar system is worthy of clinical application.
Authors: Enrico F Gherlone; Gianpaolo Sannino; Andrea Rapanelli; Roberto Crespi; Giorgio Gastaldi; Paolo Capparé Journal: Biomed Res Int Date: 2018-02-27 Impact factor: 3.411