An evaluation of impression techniques for multiple internal connection implant prostheses.

STATEMENT OF PROBLEM

Movement of impression copings inside the impression material using an open-tray impression technique during clinical and laboratory phases may cause inaccuracy in transferring the 3-dimensional spatial orientation of implants intraorally to the definitive cast. Consequently the restoration may require corrective procedures.

PURPOSE

This in vitro study evaluated the accuracy of 3 different impression techniques using polyether impression material to obtain a precise definitive cast for a multi-unit implant restoration with multiple internal connection implants.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

A reference acrylic resin model with 4 internal connection implants (3i Implant Innovations) was fabricated. Forty-five medium-consistency polyether impressions (Impregum Penta) of this model were made with square impression copings using an open-tray technique. Three groups of 15 specimens each were made with different impression techniques: in the first group, nonmodified square impression copings were used (NM group); in the second group, square impression copings were used and joined together with autopolymerizing acrylic resin before the impression procedure (R [resin] group); and in the third group, square impression copings previously airborne-particle abraded and coated with the manufacturer-recommended impression adhesive were used (M [modified] group). Matching implant replicas were screwed into the square impression copings in the impressions. Impressions were poured with ADA type IV stone (New Fujirock). A single calibrated examiner blinded to the nature of the impression technique used examined all definitive casts to evaluate the positional accuracy (mum) of the implant replica heads using a profile projector (at original magnification x10). These measurements were compared to the measurements calculated on the reference resin model which served as control. Data were analyzed with a 1-way analysis of variance at alpha=.05, followed by the Student Newman-Keuls test (alpha=.05).

RESULTS

The data obtained with the profile projector revealed significant differences within the 3 impression techniques ( P <.001). The Student Newman-Keuls procedure disclosed significant differences between the groups, with group R casts being significantly more accurate than group NM and group M casts ( P =.05). The mean distance (+/-SD) between the posterior implants compared to the reference acrylic resin model was 18.17 mum (+/- 6.4) greater for group R casts, 41.27 mum (+/- 8.4) greater for group M casts, and 46.21 mum (+/- 8.9) greater for group NM casts. Distances between the anterior implants were also greater than those recorded on the reference model. The distance was 15.23 mum (+/- 5.9) greater on group R casts, 38.17 mum (+/- 8.3) greater on group M casts, and 43.23 mum (+/- 8.7) greater on group NM casts.

CONCLUSION

Within the limitations of this study, improved accuracy of the definitive cast was achieved when the square impression copings joined together with autopolymerizing acrylic resin were used to make an impression of multiple internal connection implants.