Suppr超能文献

种植体支持修复体的印模和灌注技术的准确性。

Accuracy of impression and pouring techniques for an implant-supported prosthesis.

作者信息

Del'Acqua Marcelo Antonialli, Arioli-Filho João Neudenir, Compagnoni Marco Antonio, Mollo Francisco de Assis

机构信息

Department of Dental Materials and Prosthodontics, Araraquara Dental School, São Paulo State University, Araraquara, São Paulo, Brazil.

出版信息

Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2008 Mar-Apr;23(2):226-36.

Abstract

PURPOSE

The purpose of this in vitro study was to compare the dimensional accuracy of a stone index and of 3 impression techniques (tapered impression copings, squared impression copings, and squared impression copings splinted with acrylic resin) associated with 3 pouring techniques (conventional, pouring using latex tubes fitted onto analogs, and pouring after joining the analogs with acrylic resin) for implant-supported prostheses.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A mandibular brass cast with 4 stainless steel implant-abutment analogs, a framework, and 2 aluminum custom trays were fabricated. Polyether impression material was used for all impressions. Ten groups were formed (a control group and 9 test groups formed by combining each pouring technique and impression technique). Five casts were made per group for a total of 50 casts and 200 gap values (1 gap value for each implant-abutment analog).

RESULTS

The mean gap value with the index technique was 27.07 microm. With the conventional pouring technique, the mean gap values were 116.97 microm for the tapered group, 57.84 microm for the squared group, and 73.17 microm for the squared splinted group. With pouring using latex tubes, the mean gap values were 65.69 microm for the tapered group, 38.03 microm for the squared group, and 82.47 microm for the squared splinted group. With pouring after joining the analogs with acrylic resin, the mean gap values were 141.12 microm for the tapered group, 74.19 microm for the squared group, and 104.67 microm for the squared splinted group. No significant difference was detected among Index, square/latex techniques, and master cast (P >.05).

CONCLUSIONS

The most accurate impression technique utilized squared copings. The most accurate pouring technique for making the impression with tapered or squared copings utilized latex tubes. The pouring did not influence the accuracy of the stone casts when using splinted squared impression copings. Either the index technique or the use of squared coping combined with the latex-tube pouring technique are preferred methods for making implant-supported fixed restorations with dimensional accuracy.

摘要

目的

本体外研究的目的是比较用于种植体支持修复体的一种模型测量指标以及3种印模技术(锥形印模帽、方形印模帽和用丙烯酸树脂夹板固定的方形印模帽)与3种灌注技术(传统灌注、使用安装在代型上的乳胶管进行灌注以及用丙烯酸树脂连接代型后进行灌注)的尺寸精度。

材料与方法

制作一个带有4个不锈钢种植体基台代型、一个支架和2个铝制定制托盘的下颌黄铜铸型。所有印模均使用聚醚印模材料。共形成10组(1个对照组和9个通过将每种灌注技术与印模技术组合而成的试验组)。每组制作5个铸型,共50个铸型和200个间隙值(每个种植体基台代型1个间隙值)。

结果

模型测量指标技术的平均间隙值为27.07微米。采用传统灌注技术时,锥形组的平均间隙值为116.97微米,方形组为57.84微米,方形夹板固定组为73.17微米。使用乳胶管进行灌注时,锥形组的平均间隙值为65.69微米,方形组为38.03微米,方形夹板固定组为82.47微米。用丙烯酸树脂连接代型后进行灌注时,锥形组的平均间隙值为141.12微米,方形组为74.19微米,方形夹板固定组为104.67微米。在模型测量指标、方形/乳胶管技术和母模之间未检测到显著差异(P>.05)。

结论

最精确的印模技术是使用方形印模帽。用锥形或方形印模帽制作印模时,最精确的灌注技术是使用乳胶管。使用夹板固定的方形印模帽时,灌注不影响石膏模型的精度。模型测量指标技术或方形印模帽结合乳胶管灌注技术是制作具有尺寸精度的种植体支持固定修复体的优选方法。

文献检索

告别复杂PubMed语法,用中文像聊天一样搜索,搜遍4000万医学文献。AI智能推荐,让科研检索更轻松。

立即免费搜索

文件翻译

保留排版,准确专业,支持PDF/Word/PPT等文件格式,支持 12+语言互译。

免费翻译文档

深度研究

AI帮你快速写综述,25分钟生成高质量综述,智能提取关键信息,辅助科研写作。

立即免费体验