• The Journal of Korean Academy of Prosthodontics
• /
• v.46 no.2
• /
• pp.201-208
• /
• 2008

Statement of problem: A new implant impression technique which use abutments as impression coping, and use resin cement as a splinting material was described. Accuracy of this technique was compared with conventional closed tray and resin splinted open tray technique for a $15^{\circ}$ angled 3-implant model Material and methods: A dental stone master model with 3 linearly positioned implant analogue and a reference framework which was passively fitted to it were fabricated. The center analogue was perpendicular to the plane of model and the outer analogues had a $15^{\circ}$angulation forward or backward. 10 closed tray impressions, 10 resin splinted open tray impressions, 10 abutment-resin framework cementation impressions and 10 abutment-metal framework cementation impressions were made with additional silicone material and poured with dental stone. A light microscope with image processing was used to record the vertical gap dimension between reference framework and analogue of duplicated cast made with each 4 impression techniques. Statistical analysis used one-way ANOVA with post-hoc tests Tukey test of .05 level of significance Results: Significant difference in the vertical gap dimension was found between closed tray technique; 74.3 (${\pm}33.4$)${\mu}m$ and resin splinted open tray technique, and two other new technique. (P<.05) Abutment-metal framework cementation technique;42.5 (${\pm}11.9$)${\mu}m$ was significantly different from resin splinted open tray technique. (P<.05) Abutmentresin framework cementation technique;51.0 (${\pm}14.1$)${\mu}m$ did not differ significantly from resin splinted open tray technique;50.3 (${\pm}16.9$)${\mu}m$. (P>.05) Conclusion: Within limitations of this study, the accuracy of implant level impressions of resin splinted open tray technique was superior to that of closed tray technique. A new technique using abutment and metal framework cementation was more accurate than resin splinted open tray technique.

• The Journal of Advanced Prosthodontics
• /
• v.2 no.1
• /
• pp.25-31
• /
• 2010

PURPOSE. This study compared the accuracy of an abutment-framework (A-F) taken with open tray impression technique combining cement-on crown abutments, a metal framework and resin cement to closed tray and resin-splinted open tray impression techniques for the 3-implant definitive casts. The effect of angulation on the accuracy of these 3 techniques was also evaluated. MATERIAL AND METHODS. Three definitive casts, each with 3 linearly positioned implant analogs at relative angulations 0, 30, and 40 degrees, were fabricated with passively fitted corresponding reference frameworks. Ten impressions were made and poured, using each of the 3 techniques on each of the 3 definitive casts. To record the vertical gap between reference frameworks and analogs in duplicate casts, a light microscope with image processing was used. Data were analyzed by two-way analysis of variance and the Tukey test. RESULTS. The open tray techniques showed significantly smaller vertical gaps compare to closed tray technique (P < .05). The closed tray and the resin-splinted open tray technique showed significantly different vertical gaps according to the angulation of implant (P < .05), but the A-F impression technique did not (P > .05). CONCLUSION. The accuracy of the A-F impression technique was superior to that of conventional techniques, and was not affected by the angulation of the implants.

• Journal of Dental Rehabilitation and Applied Science
• /
• v.26 no.4
• /
• pp.433-445
• /
• 2010

The aim of this study was to evaluate the fixation effect by connecting impression copings and to compare the three types of impression trays which were used in open tray impression technique. Experimental groups used 3 types of impression trays which are custom tray, plastic metal combination tray and polycarbonate stock tray. These three groups were subdivided into splinted and non-splinted impression copings group. The total number of experimental groups was six. 10 specimens were made for each group. We used 1-screw test, observing the specimen on which only one side abutment of reference framework was fixated with 20 Ncm. The gap between implant analogue and abutment of the other side was observed by stereo microscope. It was measured at 6 points in each specimen. Measuring value was selected when same result was revealed 3 times. Recorded data were statistically analyzed. Whether impression copings were splinted or not, there was no significant difference among custom tray group, plastic metal combination tray group, and polycarbonate stock tray group. Significant statistical difference in vertical fit discrepancy was found between splinted and non-splinted impression copings group with custom tray, plastic metal combination tray and polycarbonate stock tray (p<0.05).

• The Journal of Advanced Prosthodontics
• /
• v.15 no.6
• /
• pp.290-301
• /
• 2023

PURPOSE. The study aimed to determine the influence of implant angulation on the trueness of multi-unit implant impressions taken through different techniques and strategies. MATERIALS AND METHODS. As reference models, three partially edentulous mandibular models (Model 1: No angulation; Model 2: No angulation for #33, 15-degree distal angulation for #35 and #37; Model 3: No angulation for #33, 25-degree distal angulation for #35 and #37) were created by modifying the angulations of implant analogues. Using a lab scanner, these reference models were scanned. The obtained data were preserved and utilized as virtual references. Three intraoral scanning (IOS) strategies: IOS-Omnicam, ISO-Quadrant, and IOS-Consecutive, as well as two traaditional techniques: splinted open tray (OT) and closed tray (CT), were used to create impressions from each reference model. The best-fit alignment approach was used to sequentially superimpose the reference and test scan data. Computations and statistical analysis of angular (AD), linear (LD), and 3D deviations (RMS) were performed. RESULTS. Model type, impression technique, as well as interaction factor, all demonstrated a significant influence on AD and LD values for all implant locations (P < .05). The Model 1 and SOT techniques displayed the lowest mean AD and LD values across all implant locations. When considering interaction factors, CT-Model 3 and SOT-Model 1 exhibited the highest and lowest mean AD and LD values, respectively. Model type, impression technique, and interaction factor all revealed significant effects on RMS values (P ≤ .001). CT-Model 3 and SOT-Model 1 presented the highest and lowest mean RMS values, respectively. CONCLUSION. Splinted-OT and IOS-Omnicam are recommended for multi-unit implant impressions to enhance trueness, potentially benefiting subsequent manufacturing stages.

• The Journal of Advanced Prosthodontics
• /
• v.11 no.5
• /
• pp.271-279
• /
• 2019

PURPOSE. The newest technologies for digital implant impression (DII) taking are developing rapidly and showing acceptable clinical results. However, scientific literature is lacking data from clinical studies about the accuracy of DII. The aim of this study was to compare digital and conventional dental implant impressions (CII) in a clinical environment. MATERIALS AND METHODS. Twenty-four fixed zirconia restorations supported by 2 implants were fabricated using conventional open-tray impression technique with splinted transfers (CII group) and scan with Trios 3 IOS (3Shape) (DII group). After multiple verification procedures, master models were scanned using laboratory scanner D800 (3Shape). 3D models from conventional and digital workflow were imported to reverse engineering software and superimposed with high resolution 3D CAD models of scan bodies. Distance between center points, angulation, rotation, vertical shift, and surface mismatch of the scan bodies were measured and compared between conventional and digital impressions. RESULTS. Statistically significant differences were found for: a) inter-implant distance, b) rotation, c) vertical shift, and d) surface mismatch differences, comparing DII and CII groups for mesial and distal implant scan bodies ($P{\leq}.05$). CONCLUSION. Recorded linear differences between digital and conventional impressions were of limited clinical significance with two implant-supported restorations.