Araraquara University Center-UNIARA, Araraquara, São Paulo, Brazil.
Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2010 Jul-Aug;25(4):715-21.
This in vitro study compared the dimensional accuracy of a stone index and of two impression techniques (squared impression copings and modified squared impression copings) for implant-supported prostheses.
A master cast with four parallel implant-abutment analogs and a passive framework were fabricated. Vinyl polysiloxane impression material was used for all impressions with a metal stock tray. Three groups of impressions were tested (n = 5): index (I), squared (S), and modified squared (MS). The measurement method employed was just one titanium screw tightened to the framework. The measurements (60 gap values) were analyzed using software that received the images from a video camera coupled to a stereomicroscope at 3100 magnification. The results were evaluated statistically (analysis of variance, Holm-Sidak method, α = .05).
The mean abutment/framework interface gaps were: master cast = 31.63 µm; group I = 45.25 µm; group S = 96.14 µm; group MS = 51.20 µm. No significant difference was detected among the index and modified squared techniques (P = .05).
Under the limitations of this study, the techniques modified squared and index generated more accurate casts than the squared technique.
本体外研究比较了一种牙石指数以及两种印模技术(方形印模套和改良方形印模套)在种植体支持式修复体中的尺寸精度。
制作了一个带有四个平行种植体-基台模拟体和一个被动框架的标准模型。所有印模均使用金属托盘和乙烯基聚硅氧烷印模材料。测试了三组印模(n = 5):牙石指数(I)、方形(S)和改良方形(MS)。采用的测量方法是仅将一个钛螺丝拧紧到框架上。通过连接到立体显微镜的视频摄像头接收图像的软件对测量值(60 个间隙值)进行分析,放大倍数为 3100。结果使用方差分析、 Holm-Sidak 方法进行统计评估(α =.05)。
基台/框架界面的平均间隙为:标准模型 = 31.63 µm;组 I = 45.25 µm;组 S = 96.14 µm;组 MS = 51.20 µm。指数技术和改良方形技术之间没有发现显著差异(P =.05)。
在本研究的限制条件下,改良方形技术和指数技术比方形技术产生的印模更精确。