Department of Surgical and Diagnostic Sciences, Division of Prosthodontics, University of Genova, Genoa, Italy.
Department of Surgical and Diagnostic Sciences (DISC), Pad. 4 Ospedale S. Martino, Largo Rosanna Benzi 10, 16132, Genoa, Italy.
Clin Oral Investig. 2018 Apr;22(3):1253-1262. doi: 10.1007/s00784-017-2217-9. Epub 2017 Sep 30.
The objective of this study was to evaluate the accuracy of different impression techniques on multiple implants.
A master cast simulating a jaw with four implants was used. Eight impression techniques were tested: open tray-polyether#1, open tray plus splint of impression copings with acrylic resin-polyether#1, closed tray-polyether#1, open tray-polyether#2, open tray-splint-polyether#2, closed tray-polyether#2, open tray-impression plaster, and digital impression (DI). Five impressions of the master cast were taken with each traditional impression (TI) technique, pouring 35 sample casts. Three different clinicians took 5 DI each (n = 15). A three-dimensional coordinate measurement machine (CMM) was used to measure implant angulation and inter-implant distances on TI casts. TI data and DI Standard Tessellation Language datasets were compared with the master cast. The best and the worst impressions made with TI and DI were selected to fabricate four milled titanium frameworks. Passive fit was evaluated through Sheffield test, screwing each framework on the master cast. Gaps between framework-implant analogs were measured through a stereomicroscope (×40 magnification).
Statistically significant differences in accuracy were found comparing the different impression techniques by CMM (p < 0.01). DI performed the best, while TI techniques revealed a greater variability in the results. Sheffield test revealed a mean gap of 0.022 ± 0.023 mm (the best TI), 0.063 ± 0.059 mm (the worst TI), 0.015 ± 0.011 mm (the best DI), and 0.019 ± 0.015 mm (the worst DI).
Within the limits of this in vitro study, the digital impression showed better accuracy compared to conventional impressioning.
The digital impression might offer a viable alternative to traditional impressions for fabrication of full-arch implant-supported prostheses with satisfactory passive fit.
本研究旨在评估多种种植体的不同印模技术的准确性。
使用模拟带有四个种植体的下颌的上颌模型。测试了八种印模技术:开放式托盘-聚醚#1、开放式托盘加带丙烯酸树脂的印模夹夹板-聚醚#1、封闭式托盘-聚醚#1、开放式托盘-聚醚#2、开放式托盘-夹板-聚醚#2、封闭式托盘-聚醚#2、开放式托盘-印模石膏和数字印模(DI)。每种传统印模(TI)技术都对上颌模型进行了五次印模,共浇注了 35 个样本。三位不同的临床医生每人进行了 5 次 DI(n=15)。使用三坐标测量机(CMM)测量 TI 模型上种植体的倾斜角度和种植体之间的距离。将 TI 数据和 DI 标准 tessellation language 数据集与上颌模型进行比较。选择 TI 和 DI 中最佳和最差的印模来制作四个铣削钛框架。通过 Sheffield 测试评估被动拟合,即将每个框架拧到上颌模型上。通过立体显微镜(放大倍数×40)测量框架-种植体模拟物之间的间隙。
通过 CMM 比较不同印模技术,发现准确性存在显著差异(p<0.01)。DI 表现最好,而 TI 技术的结果差异较大。Sheffield 测试显示平均间隙分别为 0.022±0.023mm(最佳 TI)、0.063±0.059mm(最差 TI)、0.015±0.011mm(最佳 DI)和 0.019±0.015mm(最差 DI)。
在本体外研究的范围内,与传统印模相比,数字印模显示出更好的准确性。
数字印模可能为全口种植体支持义齿的制作提供一种可行的替代传统印模的方法,具有令人满意的被动拟合。