Pujari Malesh, Garg Pooja, Prithviraj D R
1 Department of Prosthodontics and Implantology, Pandit Deendayal Upadhyaya Dental College and Hospital, Solapur, India.
J Oral Implantol. 2014 Apr;40(2):137-45. doi: 10.1563/AAID-JOI-D-10-00207. Epub 2014 Jan 23.
Movement of impression copings inside the impression material using a direct (open tray) impression technique during clinical and laboratory phases may cause inaccuracy in transferring the 3-dimensional spatial orientation of implants intraorally to the cast. Consequently, the prosthesis may require corrective procedures. This in vitro study evaluated the accuracy of 3 different impression techniques using polyether and vinyl polysiloxane (VPS) impression material to obtain a precise cast for multiple internal connection implants. A reference acrylic resin model with 4 internal connection implants was fabricated. Impressions of the reference model were made using 3 different techniques and 2 different impression materials. The study consisted of 24 specimens divided into 6 groups of 4 each. Impressions were poured with ADA type IV stone (Kalrock, Kalabhai Karson Pvt Ltd, Mumbai, India). All casts were evaluated for the positional accuracy (mm) of the implant replica heads using a profile projector. These measurements were compared to the measurements calculated on the reference resin model, which served as a control. Data were analyzed with 2-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) followed by Bonferroni multiple comparison procedures to evaluate group means. The results revealed significant difference for anterior implant distance between the 2 impression materials (P < .01) and also among the 3 different techniques (P < .05). The lowest mean variation was found with the polyether impression material and the splinted technique. For posterior implants, the results suggested no significant difference between the 2 impression materials (P ≥ .05). Although results were not statistically significant, the polyether impression material showed the lowest mean variation as compared to the VPS impression material. However, there was a significant difference among the 3 different techniques (P < .05). Among the 3 different techniques, the lowest mean variation between 2 posterior implants was found in the splinted technique. Casts obtained from impression techniques using square impression copings splinted together with autopolymerizing acrylic resin prior to the impression procedure were more accurate than casts obtained from impressions with nonmodified implant impression copings and with airborne particle-abraded, adhesive-coated copings. Casts obtained from polyether impression material were more accurate than casts obtained from vinyl polysiloxane impression material.
在临床和实验室阶段,使用直接(开放托盘)印模技术时,印模帽在印模材料内的移动可能会导致将种植体的三维空间方向口内转移到模型时出现不准确情况。因此,修复体可能需要进行矫正程序。这项体外研究评估了使用聚醚和乙烯基聚硅氧烷(VPS)印模材料的三种不同印模技术的准确性,以获得用于多个内部连接种植体的精确模型。制作了一个带有4个内部连接种植体的参考丙烯酸树脂模型。使用三种不同技术和两种不同印模材料对参考模型进行印模。该研究包括24个标本,分为6组,每组4个。用ADA IV型石膏(Kalrock,Kalabhai Karson Pvt Ltd,孟买,印度)灌注印模。使用轮廓投影仪评估所有模型上种植体复制头的位置准确性(毫米)。将这些测量结果与在用作对照的参考树脂模型上计算的测量结果进行比较。数据采用双向方差分析(ANOVA),随后进行Bonferroni多重比较程序以评估组均值。结果显示,两种印模材料之间前牙种植体距离存在显著差异(P <.01),三种不同技术之间也存在显著差异(P <.05)。聚醚印模材料和夹板技术的平均变化最小。对于后牙种植体,结果表明两种印模材料之间无显著差异(P≥.05)。虽然结果无统计学意义,但与VPS印模材料相比,聚醚印模材料的平均变化最小。然而,三种不同技术之间存在显著差异(P <.05)。在三种不同技术中,夹板技术中两个后牙种植体之间的平均变化最小。在印模程序之前,使用方形印模帽与自凝丙烯酸树脂夹板在一起的印模技术获得的模型比使用未改良种植体印模帽和空气颗粒磨损、涂有粘合剂的印模帽获得印模的模型更准确。聚醚印模材料获得的模型比乙烯基聚硅氧烷印模材料获得的模型更准确。