A Comparative study of Different Impression Materials and Techniques of Dental Implant at The Second Stage of Procedure

Background of the study: Dental implants are one of the most sought-after choice of treatment for restoration and rehabilitation of missing teeth. However, the accuracy of the removable or fixed superstructures over the dental implants is influenced for a major proportion by the impression techniques and materials. This paper discusses the comparison of the accuracy of different impression materials and techniques used in the second stage of the dental implant treatment in vivo. Objective: The objective of the paper is to study the comparison of the accuracy of different impression materials and techniques used in the second stage of the dental implant’s treatment in vivo. Search methodology: Electronically key searched in scientific literature databases. Selection criteria: Based on the set inclusion and exclusion criteria such as studies conducted in partial edentulous arches, in the age group of 30 to 55 years. Data collection and analysis: A total of 248 literatures were found to be relevant to the framed topic and were scrutinised based on the dejected criteria and 18 kinds of literature obtained were taken into consideration. Main Result: Among the different impression materials taken into the comparative study, it was observed that polyvinyl siloxane exhibited a dimensional accuracy slightly greater than polyether. However, light body putty exhibited greater accuracy than medium body putty. Various impression techniques were compared to evaluate the dimensional accuracy of the impression. It was observed that the open tray technique and splinted impression technique produced a more dimensionally stable impression than the other techniques. Authors Conclusion: this study to assess the accuracy of various impression material and methods has concluded that while impression techniques influence the accuracy of the impression, the impression materials namely the Polyvinyl siloxane and polyether exhibit no significant difference with a slight preference to the polyvinyl siloxane. Hence the choice of impression material is at the discretion of the dentist performing the treatment and also this area requires further studies to establish conclusive evidence.