Comparative analysis of different implant impression techniques: An In vitro study

IF 0.4 Q4 BIOLOGY
Radhika Agnihotri, Saloni S. Naik, K. Vaishnav, D. Shah, Ravi Joshi, M. Bhatt
{"title":"Comparative analysis of different implant impression techniques: An In vitro study","authors":"Radhika Agnihotri, Saloni S. Naik, K. Vaishnav, D. Shah, Ravi Joshi, M. Bhatt","doi":"10.4103/aihb.aihb_140_22","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Introduction: Dental implants have emerged as the treatment of choice for restoring missing teeth in situations that require functional and aesthetic replacements. The aim of the study was to assess the dimensional accuracy of (1) the resultant casts made from different impression techniques for implants, (2) implant impressions using two types of splinting material for open tray technique, auto-polymerising acrylic resin and light-cure acrylic resin and impression techniques, including non-sectioning and sectioning and rejoining with the same splinting material. Materials and Methods: The present study was conducted to compare the accuracy of direct splinted implant impression techniques. There were four impression techniques selected: (1) direct impression technique with autopolymerising acrylic resin splint, (2) direct impression technique with autopolymerising acrylic resin splint sectioned 17 min after setting and welded with the same resin, (3) direct impression technique with light-cure acrylic resin splint and (4) direct impression technique with light-cure acrylic resin splint sectioned and welded with the same resin. Results: Comparison within the four impression groups with respect to distances X and Y with a master model by Tukey's post-hoc procedures shows a statistically significant difference only for Group 1, showing P < 0.05. Conclusion: There is a significant difference in the accuracy of the direct splinted implant impression technique with auto-polymerising acrylic resin without sectioning. Sectioning the auto-polymerising acrylic resin splint after 17 min and rejoining before impression making markedly increase the accuracy of implant impression. Splinting with light-cure acrylic resin shows a more accurate impression than the splint with auto-polymerising acrylic resin.","PeriodicalId":7341,"journal":{"name":"Advances in Human Biology","volume":"13 1","pages":"44 - 51"},"PeriodicalIF":0.4000,"publicationDate":"2023-05-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Advances in Human Biology","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.4103/aihb.aihb_140_22","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"BIOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

Abstract

Introduction: Dental implants have emerged as the treatment of choice for restoring missing teeth in situations that require functional and aesthetic replacements. The aim of the study was to assess the dimensional accuracy of (1) the resultant casts made from different impression techniques for implants, (2) implant impressions using two types of splinting material for open tray technique, auto-polymerising acrylic resin and light-cure acrylic resin and impression techniques, including non-sectioning and sectioning and rejoining with the same splinting material. Materials and Methods: The present study was conducted to compare the accuracy of direct splinted implant impression techniques. There were four impression techniques selected: (1) direct impression technique with autopolymerising acrylic resin splint, (2) direct impression technique with autopolymerising acrylic resin splint sectioned 17 min after setting and welded with the same resin, (3) direct impression technique with light-cure acrylic resin splint and (4) direct impression technique with light-cure acrylic resin splint sectioned and welded with the same resin. Results: Comparison within the four impression groups with respect to distances X and Y with a master model by Tukey's post-hoc procedures shows a statistically significant difference only for Group 1, showing P < 0.05. Conclusion: There is a significant difference in the accuracy of the direct splinted implant impression technique with auto-polymerising acrylic resin without sectioning. Sectioning the auto-polymerising acrylic resin splint after 17 min and rejoining before impression making markedly increase the accuracy of implant impression. Splinting with light-cure acrylic resin shows a more accurate impression than the splint with auto-polymerising acrylic resin.
不同种植体印模技术的比较分析:一项体外研究
简介:牙种植体已经成为修复缺失牙齿的治疗选择,在需要功能和美学替代的情况下。本研究的目的是评估(1)种植体不同压模技术制成的铸件的尺寸精度,(2)种植体压模使用两种类型的夹板材料进行开盘技术,自动聚合丙烯酸树脂和光固化丙烯酸树脂和压模技术,包括不切片和切片,并与相同的夹板材料重新连接。材料和方法:本研究比较直接夹板种植体印模技术的准确性。选择四种压模技术:(1)直接压模法与自聚合丙烯酸树脂夹板,(2)直接压模法与自聚合丙烯酸树脂夹板在定型后17分钟切片,用相同的树脂焊接,(3)直接压模法与光固化丙烯酸树脂夹板,(4)直接压模法与光固化丙烯酸树脂夹板切片,用相同的树脂焊接。结果:通过Tukey’s post-hoc程序将四个印象组内的距离X和Y与主模型进行比较,结果显示,只有第1组的差异具有统计学意义,P < 0.05。结论:无需切片的丙烯酸树脂自动聚合直接夹板种植体压印技术在准确性上有显著差异。自动聚合丙烯酸树脂夹板在17分钟后切片,并在印模前重新连接,可显著提高种植体印模的准确性。光固化丙烯酸树脂夹板比自动聚合丙烯酸树脂夹板印模更准确。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
37
审稿时长
11 weeks
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信