Assif D, Nissan J, Varsano I, Singer A
Department of Oral Rehabilitation, Maurice and Gabriela Goldschleger School of Dental Medicine, Tel Aviv University, Israel.
Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 1999 Nov-Dec;14(6):885-8.
Three implant impression techniques, using 3 different splinting materials, were assessed for accuracy in a laboratory model that simulated clinical practice. For group A, an autopolymerizing acrylic resin was used to splint transfer copings. In group B, a dual-cure acrylic resin was used, and for group C, plaster, which was also the impression material, was used. A metal implant master cast with an implant master framework was made to accurately fit to the cast. This cast was the standard for all impressions. For each group, 15 impressions were made. Polyether impression material was used for groups A and B. The accuracy of the stone casts with the implant analogues was measured against the master framework, using strain gauges. A multiple analysis of variance with repeated measures was performed to test for significant differences among the 3 groups. Additional analyses of variance were carried out to locate the source of difference. The statistical analyses revealed that a significant difference existed between groups A and B and between groups B and C but not between groups A and C. Impression techniques using autopolymerizing acrylic resin or impression plaster as a splinting material were significantly more accurate than dual-cure acrylic resin. Plaster is the material of choice in completely edentulous patients, since it is much easier to manipulate, less time consuming, and less expensive.
在一个模拟临床实践的实验室模型中，评估了使用三种不同夹板材料的三种种植体印模技术的准确性。A组使用自凝丙烯酸树脂来夹板转移帽。B组使用双固化丙烯酸树脂，C组使用石膏，石膏也是印模材料。制作了带有种植体主框架的金属种植体主模型，使其精确适配模型。该模型是所有印模的标准。每组制作15个印模。A组和B组使用聚醚印模材料。使用应变片，将带有种植体代型的石膏模型与主框架进行对比，测量其准确性。进行重复测量的多因素方差分析，以检验三组之间的显著差异。进行额外的方差分析以确定差异来源。统计分析表明，A组和B组之间以及B组和C组之间存在显著差异，但A组和C组之间不存在显著差异。使用自凝丙烯酸树脂或印模石膏作为夹板材料的印模技术比双固化丙烯酸树脂更准确。石膏是全口无牙患者的首选材料，因为它更容易操作，耗时更少且成本更低。
