Guo Yong-Qing, Ma Yun, Cai Shu-Ning, Yu Hao
Postgraduate student, Fujian Key Laboratory of Oral Diseases & Fujian Provincial Engineering Research Center of Oral Biomaterial & Stomatological Key Laboratory of Fujian College and University, School and Hospital of Stomatology, Fujian Medical University, Fuzhou, Fujian, PR China.
PhD Candidate, Fujian Key Laboratory of Oral Diseases & Fujian Provincial Engineering Research Center of Oral Biomaterial & Stomatological Key Laboratory of Fujian College and University, School and Hospital of Stomatology, Fujian Medical University, Fuzhou, Fujian, PR China.
J Prosthet Dent. 2025 May;133(5):1172-1182. doi: 10.1016/j.prosdent.2023.06.024. Epub 2023 Aug 19.
Although polyvinyl siloxane (PVS) materials and polyether (PE) materials have been the recommended materials for making impressions for implant-supported fixed complete dentures (IFCDs), a consensus regarding the optimal impression materials has yet to be established.
The purpose of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to evaluate the effect of impression materials on the accuracy of conventional impressions for IFCDs and to provide guidance for selecting the optimal impression material.
The PubMed, Web of Science, and Embase databases were searched and supplemented via hand searches. Studies comparing the accuracy of conventional impressions for IFCDs by using PVS and PE materials with either direct (open-tray) or indirect (closed-tray) techniques were included. Linear distance deviations and angular deviations between adjacent implants were evaluated. The mean difference (MD) with a 95% confidence interval (CI) was calculated for continuous data. A subgroup analysis was conducted to evaluate the impact of implant angulation (α=.05).
Among the 597 publications identified, 27 in vitro studies were included for qualitative analysis, and 12 were included for quantitative analysis. The general analysis revealed no significant differences in linear distance and angular deviations between the 2 impression materials with the direct or indirect technique. The subgroup analysis found that a statistically significant difference in linear distance deviations was found when implants were placed at an angle greater than 15 degrees, favoring PE materials when using the direct technique (P=.010, MD: 32.54 µm; 95% CI: 6.83 to 58.24) and indirect technique (P=.020, MD: 138.15 µm, 95% CI: 19.17 to 257.13). However, only 2 relevant studies assessed the indirect technique.
When providing IFCDs, conventional impressions obtained by using PVS and PE materials were found to have similar accuracy in most scenarios. PE materials yielded better outcomes when implants were placed at an angle greater than 15 degrees.
尽管聚乙烯基硅氧烷（PVS）材料和聚醚（PE）材料一直是制作种植体支持的固定全口义齿（IFCD）印模的推荐材料，但关于最佳印模材料尚未达成共识。
本系统评价和荟萃分析的目的是评估印模材料对IFCD传统印模准确性的影响，并为选择最佳印模材料提供指导。
检索PubMed、Web of Science和Embase数据库，并通过手工检索进行补充。纳入了使用PVS和PE材料通过直接（开放托盘）或间接（封闭托盘）技术比较IFCD传统印模准确性的研究。评估相邻种植体之间的线性距离偏差和角度偏差。对连续数据计算95%置信区间（CI）的平均差（MD）。进行亚组分析以评估种植体角度的影响（α = 0.05）。
在鉴定出的597篇出版物中，纳入27项体外研究进行定性分析，12项纳入定量分析。综合分析显示，两种印模材料在直接或间接技术下的线性距离和角度偏差无显著差异。亚组分析发现，当种植体角度大于15度时，线性距离偏差存在统计学显著差异，在直接技术下（P = 0.010，MD：32.54 µm；95% CI：6.83至58.24）和间接技术下（P = 0.020，MD：138.15 µm，95% CI：19.17至257.13）更有利于PE材料。然而，只有2项相关研究评估了间接技术。
在提供IFCD时，发现使用PVS和PE材料获得的传统印模在大多数情况下具有相似的准确性。当种植体角度大于15度时，PE材料产生更好的结果。
