Postgraduate Prosthodontic Division, Tufts University School of Dental Medicine, Boston, MA 02111, USA.
J Prosthet Dent. 2013 Aug;110(2):90-100. doi: 10.1016/S0022-3913(13)60346-7.
Fabricating implant definitive casts with CAD/CAM technology (Robocasts) from coded healing abutment impressions represents a simpler and innovative alternative to conventional implant impression techniques. However, information about the accuracy of the impressions and the resultant definitive casts is limited.
The purpose of the study was to evaluate the accuracy of the Robocasts and compare them to those definitive casts fabricated with conventional implant impression techniques (open tray with splinted impression copings technique).
A reference epoxy resin cast was fabricated and shaped to simulate a dental arch. Two regular platform implant replicas (Biomet 3i Certain, 4.1 mm diameter and 15 mm length) with internal connections were placed 10 mm apart with a 10-degree convergence for one side of the reference resin cast and a 30-degree convergence for the other. Coded healing abutments (Encode) were placed at 3 different heights above the level of the soft tissue replication material (approximately 1, 2, and 4 mm) and served as test groups (E1, E2, and E4), and open trays with splinted impression copings (OTSC) served as a control group. The control group was compared to the impressions of the coded healing abutments by using a standardized measurement protocol. Impressions were made for each group (n=18) and poured with vacuum mixed (100 g powder/20 mL water) Type IV dental stone. The vertical discrepancy (Z axis) between 2 prefabricated passively fitting titanium reference frameworks and the platforms of the implant replicas was measured with an optical comparator applying the 1 screw test. Data were analyzed with Kruskal-Wallis and post-hoc Mann-Whitney U tests, as well as the Wilcoxon signed-rank tests. The Bonferroni correction was used to account for multiple comparisons. The significance level (α) used in a given set of tests was equal to .05 divided by the number of tests performed in that set.
The median vertical discrepancy of each coded healing abutment impression group was higher than the corresponding median of the control group (OTSC) for every combination of angulation and position. Kruskal-Wallis tests indicated a statistically significant difference (P<.001) between groups for each angulation/position combination. All post hoc Mann-Whitney U tests indicated statistically significant differences (all P≤.002) between OTSC and the other groups. Differences between the angulations and positions were not statistically significant when accounting for multiple comparisons.
The implant definitive casts fabricated from the coded healing abutment impressions were found to be less accurate than those fabricated from the open tray with splinted impression copings technique for restoring 2 paired (10 or 30 degrees) convergent internal connection implants with nonengaging screw-retained splinted 2-unit implant restorations. Accuracy of fit was not influenced by the implant angulation or position for either impression technique or by the Encode healing abutment height for the Encode impression technique.
使用 CAD/CAM 技术(Robocasts)从编码愈合基台印模制作种植体最终印模代表了一种比传统种植体印模技术更简单和创新的替代方法。然而,关于印模的准确性和由此产生的最终印模的信息有限。
本研究的目的是评估 Robocasts 的准确性,并将其与使用传统种植体印模技术(带夹板印模套的开放式托盘技术)制作的最终印模进行比较。
制作了一个参考环氧树脂模型,并进行了塑形,以模拟一个牙弓。将两个带有内部连接的常规平台种植体复制体(Biomet 3i Certain,直径 4.1 毫米,长度 15 毫米)放置在参考树脂模型的一侧相距 10 毫米,夹角为 10 度,另一侧夹角为 30 度。将编码愈合基台(Encode)放置在软组织复制材料上方 3 个不同的高度(约 1、2 和 4 毫米),作为测试组(E1、E2 和 E4),开放式托盘带夹板印模套(OTSC)作为对照组。通过使用标准化的测量协议,将对照组与编码愈合基台的印模进行比较。对每个组(n=18)进行印模并使用真空混合(100 g 粉末/20 mL 水)IV 型牙科石膏浇铸。使用光学比较仪应用 1 个螺钉测试,测量 2 个预制被动适配钛参考架和种植体复制体平台之间的垂直差异(Z 轴)。使用 Kruskal-Wallis 和事后曼-惠特尼 U 检验以及 Wilcoxon 符号秩检验对数据进行分析。使用 Bonferroni 校正来考虑多次比较。在一组给定的测试中使用的显著水平(α)等于将.05 除以该组中进行的测试次数。
每个编码愈合基台印模组的中位数垂直差异均高于对照组(OTSC)在每个角度和位置的组合中。Kruskal-Wallis 检验表明,对于每个角度/位置组合,组间存在统计学上的显著差异(P<.001)。所有事后曼-惠特尼 U 检验均表明 OTSC 与其他组之间存在统计学上的显著差异(所有 P≤.002)。当考虑多次比较时,角度和位置之间的差异没有统计学意义。
对于使用非接触式螺钉固位夹板式 2 单位种植体修复体修复 2 个配对(10 度或 30 度)会聚内部连接种植体的情况,从编码愈合基台印模制作的种植体最终印模被发现不如从开放式托盘带夹板印模套技术制作的最终印模准确。对于两种印模技术,印模的准确性不受种植体角度或位置的影响,也不受 Encode 愈合基台高度的影响,对于 Encode 印模技术。