Department of Dental Materials and Prosthodontics, São Paulo State University (UNESP), Araçatuba Dental School, São Paulo, Brazil 16015-050.
Implant Dent. 2010 Apr;19(2):167-74. doi: 10.1097/ID.0b013e3181cd715f.
The purpose of this study was to compare 2 splinted impression transfer techniques for implant-supported prostheses.
A metal matrix (control) with 4 implants was used. The implants were positioned at 90, 80, 75, and 65 degrees in relation to the surface of the matrix. Squared impression copings were splinted with self-curing acrylic resin in group 1 (n = 10) and with condensation silicone in group 2 (n = 10). A computer software was used to measure the implants/analogs inclinations. Data were analyzed by 2-way analysis of variance and Tukey test (alpha <0.05).
There was significant difference between groups, implant/analog inclinations, and interaction between them (P < 0.05). Group 1 had no significant difference from the control (P > 0.05) nor from group 2 (P > 0.05) regardless implant/analog inclinations. Considering implant/analog inclinations, both techniques did not differ from control group (P > 0.05), except for 75 degrees implant/analog inclinations (P < 0.05).
The results suggest that condensation silicone may not be used as an alternative splinting material. Furthermore, implant inclination may affect master cast accuracy.
本研究旨在比较两种用于种植体支持式修复体的夹板式印模转移技术。
使用带有 4 个种植体的金属基台(对照组)。种植体与基台表面的夹角分别为 90、80、75 和 65 度。在第 1 组(n=10)中,用自凝丙烯酸树脂将方形印模帽夹板固定,在第 2 组(n=10)中,用压缩硅胶固定。使用计算机软件测量种植体/模拟体的倾斜度。采用双因素方差分析和 Tukey 检验(α<0.05)对数据进行分析。
组间、种植体/模拟体倾斜度以及它们之间的相互作用均有显著差异(P<0.05)。第 1 组与对照组(P>0.05)和第 2 组(P>0.05)之间无论种植体/模拟体倾斜度如何均无显著差异。考虑到种植体/模拟体的倾斜度,两种技术与对照组均无差异(P>0.05),除了 75 度种植体/模拟体倾斜度(P<0.05)。
结果表明,压缩硅胶可能不适宜用作夹板式印模转移的替代材料。此外,种植体倾斜度可能会影响工作模型的准确性。