Associate Professor, Department of Operative Dentistry, National and Kapodistrian University of Athens, Athens, Greece.
Professor and Director, Division of Prosthodontics, University of Minnesota School of Dentistry, Minneapolis, Minn.
J Prosthet Dent. 2020 Jan;123(1):143-148. doi: 10.1016/j.prosdent.2018.12.011. Epub 2019 May 10.
Which impression material, impression tray type, and implant impression technique combination produces the most accurate complete-arch impression is unclear.
The purpose of this in vitro study was to compare the implant impression accuracy of a completely edentulous arch made with addition silicone occlusal registration material and an open tray with the implant impression accuracy of other conventional impression techniques.
A master cast was fabricated from Type IV gypsum with four 3.8-mm diameter implants with internal hexagon located in the area of mandibular canines and first molars. Impressions (N=60) were made from the master cast using the 6 techniques investigated: group B-OC-N with occlusal registration impression material (B), open custom tray (OC), and nonsplinted impression pins (N); group B-OS-N with occlusal registration impression material (B), open plastic perforated stock tray (OS), and nonsplinted impression pins (N); group PE-OC-N with polyether medium-body impression material (PE), open custom tray (OC), and nonsplinted impression pins (N); group PE-OC-S with polyether medium-body impression material (PE), open custom tray (OC), and impression pins splinted (S) with autopolymerizing resin cut after 17 minutes and reconnected; group PE-CC-N with polyether medium-body impression material (PE), closed custom tray (CC), and nonsplinted impression pins (N); group PVS-CS-N with simultaneous double-mix polyvinyl siloxane impression material (PVS), closed stock perforated metal tray (CS), and nonsplinted impression pins (N). Type IV gypsum casts were fabricated 24 hours after making the impressions. A computerized numerical control 3D coordinate measuring machine was used to measure the absolute differences of the distances between the centroids of the 4 implants among the casts produced and the distances measured at the master cast. The Kruskal-Wallis test was used to determine differences among the experimental groups (α=.05). The Mann-Whitney U post hoc analysis was used for all group combinations.
No significant differences were found between the test groups B-OC-N and PE-OC-S, which were more accurate than the other groups. Group B-OS-N resulted in the least accurate impressions of all experimental groups. Group PE-OC-S resulted in more accurate impressions than the PE-OC-N group. No statistically significant differences were found between groups PE-OC-N and PE-CC-N or between groups PVS-CS-N and PE-CC-N.
For complete edentulism, the use of silicone occlusal registration material with an open custom tray and nonsplinted impression pins resulted in impressions as accurate as those produced with PE open custom tray with splinted impression pins. These 2 techniques resulted in more accurate impressions than the other 4 techniques studied.
哪种印模材料、印模托盘类型和种植体印模技术组合能产生最准确的全牙弓印模尚不清楚。
本体外研究的目的是比较使用全口义齿硅橡胶咬合记录材料和开放式托盘与其他常规印模技术制作的完全无牙颌印模的种植体印模精度。
使用 IV 型石膏制作一个主模型,其中包含四个 3.8 毫米直径的内六角种植体,位于下颌尖牙和第一磨牙区域。使用 6 种研究技术从主模型中制作印模(N=60):组 B-OC-N 用咬合记录印模材料(B)、开放式定制托盘(OC)和无固位钉(N);组 B-OS-N 用咬合记录印模材料(B)、开放式塑料穿孔库存托盘(OS)和无固位钉(N);组 PE-OC-N 用聚醚中体印模材料(PE)、开放式定制托盘(OC)和无固位钉(N);组 PE-OC-S 用聚醚中体印模材料(PE)、开放式定制托盘(OC)和固位钉(S),固位钉在 17 分钟后用自聚物树脂切割,然后重新连接;组 PE-CC-N 用聚醚中体印模材料(PE)、封闭式定制托盘(CC)和无固位钉(N);组 PVS-CS-N 用双混合聚硅氧烷印模材料(PVS)、封闭式穿孔金属托盘(CS)和无固位钉(N)同时使用。印模制作后 24 小时制作 IV 型石膏模型。使用计算机数控 3D 坐标测量机测量各印模模型中 4 个种植体中心之间的距离与主模型中测量的距离的绝对差异。采用 Kruskal-Wallis 检验确定实验组之间的差异(α=.05)。使用 Mann-Whitney U 事后分析所有组间组合。
实验组 B-OC-N 和 PE-OC-S 之间无显著差异,其准确性高于其他组。组 B-OS-N 是所有实验组中最不准确的印模。组 PE-OC-S 的印模比组 PE-OC-N 更准确。组 PE-OC-N 和组 PE-CC-N 之间或组 PVS-CS-N 和组 PE-CC-N 之间无统计学差异。
对于完全无牙颌,使用开放式定制托盘和无固位钉的硅橡胶咬合记录材料与使用带有固位钉的开放式聚醚定制托盘产生的印模一样准确。这两种技术产生的印模比研究中的其他 4 种技术更准确。