Accuracy of tooth‐implant impressions: Comparison of five different techniques
Abstract Purpose To compare the accuracy of five different tooth‐implant impression techniques. Materials and Methods In this in vitro, experimental study, an acrylic model containing one bone‐level Straumann dental implant at the site of maxillary first molar and an adjacent second premolar prepare...
| Main Authors: | , , , |
|---|---|
| Format: | Article |
| Language: | English |
| Published: |
Wiley
2023-06-01
|
| Series: | Clinical and Experimental Dental Research |
| Subjects: | |
| Online Access: | https://doi.org/10.1002/cre2.737 |
| _version_ | 1797799479977443328 |
|---|---|
| author | Amirhossein Fathi Mansour Rismanchian Atousa Yazdekhasti Masih Salamati |
| author_facet | Amirhossein Fathi Mansour Rismanchian Atousa Yazdekhasti Masih Salamati |
| author_sort | Amirhossein Fathi |
| collection | DOAJ |
| description | Abstract Purpose To compare the accuracy of five different tooth‐implant impression techniques. Materials and Methods In this in vitro, experimental study, an acrylic model containing one bone‐level Straumann dental implant at the site of maxillary first molar and an adjacent second premolar prepared for a porcelain fused to metal restoration was used. Impressions were made from the model using five different one‐step tooth‐implant impression techniques including scanning with an intraoral scanner, occlusal matrix, wax relief, closed‐tray, and open‐tray techniques. Each technique was repeated 15 times. The impressions were poured with dental stone, and the obtained casts were scanned by a laboratory scanner. The scan file of each technique was compared with the scan file of the original acrylic model by Geomagic Design X software. Data were analyzed by one‐way analysis of variance, and Tamhane's post‐hoc test (α = 0.05). Results For dental implant, intraoral scanning had the highest accuracy (0.1004 mm2) followed by open‐tray (0.1914 mm2), occlusal matrix (0.2101 mm2), closed‐tray (0.2422 mm2), and wax relief (0.2585 mm2) techniques (p < 0.05). For the prepared tooth, wax relief (0.0988 mm2) had the highest accuracy followed by occlusal matrix (0.1211 mm2), open‐tray (0.1663 mm2), closed‐tray (0.1737 mm2), and intraoral scanning (0.4903 mm2) technique (p < 0.05). For both dental implant and prepared tooth, occlusal matrix (0.2431 mm2) had the highest accuracy followed by open‐tray (0.2574 mm2), wax relief (0.2693 mm2), closed‐tray (0.2862 mm2), and intraoral scanning (0.3192 mm2) technique (p > 0.05). Conclusion The compared simultaneous tooth‐implant impression techniques had comparable accuracy with no significant difference. |
| first_indexed | 2024-03-13T04:20:32Z |
| format | Article |
| id | doaj.art-34014a25d41543ed80a34e8afecc883a |
| institution | Directory Open Access Journal |
| issn | 2057-4347 |
| language | English |
| last_indexed | 2024-03-13T04:20:32Z |
| publishDate | 2023-06-01 |
| publisher | Wiley |
| record_format | Article |
| series | Clinical and Experimental Dental Research |
| spelling | doaj.art-34014a25d41543ed80a34e8afecc883a2023-06-20T10:18:25ZengWileyClinical and Experimental Dental Research2057-43472023-06-019352653410.1002/cre2.737Accuracy of tooth‐implant impressions: Comparison of five different techniquesAmirhossein Fathi0Mansour Rismanchian1Atousa Yazdekhasti2Masih Salamati3Dental Prosthodontics Department, School of Dentistry, Dental Materials Research Center Isfahan University of Medical Sciences Isfahan IranDental Prosthodontics Department, School of Dentistry, Dental Implants Research Center Isfahan University of Medical Sciences Isfahan IranSchool of Dentistry Isfahan University of Medical Sciences Isfahan IranSchool of Dentistry Isfahan University of Medical Sciences Isfahan IranAbstract Purpose To compare the accuracy of five different tooth‐implant impression techniques. Materials and Methods In this in vitro, experimental study, an acrylic model containing one bone‐level Straumann dental implant at the site of maxillary first molar and an adjacent second premolar prepared for a porcelain fused to metal restoration was used. Impressions were made from the model using five different one‐step tooth‐implant impression techniques including scanning with an intraoral scanner, occlusal matrix, wax relief, closed‐tray, and open‐tray techniques. Each technique was repeated 15 times. The impressions were poured with dental stone, and the obtained casts were scanned by a laboratory scanner. The scan file of each technique was compared with the scan file of the original acrylic model by Geomagic Design X software. Data were analyzed by one‐way analysis of variance, and Tamhane's post‐hoc test (α = 0.05). Results For dental implant, intraoral scanning had the highest accuracy (0.1004 mm2) followed by open‐tray (0.1914 mm2), occlusal matrix (0.2101 mm2), closed‐tray (0.2422 mm2), and wax relief (0.2585 mm2) techniques (p < 0.05). For the prepared tooth, wax relief (0.0988 mm2) had the highest accuracy followed by occlusal matrix (0.1211 mm2), open‐tray (0.1663 mm2), closed‐tray (0.1737 mm2), and intraoral scanning (0.4903 mm2) technique (p < 0.05). For both dental implant and prepared tooth, occlusal matrix (0.2431 mm2) had the highest accuracy followed by open‐tray (0.2574 mm2), wax relief (0.2693 mm2), closed‐tray (0.2862 mm2), and intraoral scanning (0.3192 mm2) technique (p > 0.05). Conclusion The compared simultaneous tooth‐implant impression techniques had comparable accuracy with no significant difference.https://doi.org/10.1002/cre2.737dental implantsdental impression techniquedimensional measurement accuracytooth |
| spellingShingle | Amirhossein Fathi Mansour Rismanchian Atousa Yazdekhasti Masih Salamati Accuracy of tooth‐implant impressions: Comparison of five different techniques Clinical and Experimental Dental Research dental implants dental impression technique dimensional measurement accuracy tooth |
| title | Accuracy of tooth‐implant impressions: Comparison of five different techniques |
| title_full | Accuracy of tooth‐implant impressions: Comparison of five different techniques |
| title_fullStr | Accuracy of tooth‐implant impressions: Comparison of five different techniques |
| title_full_unstemmed | Accuracy of tooth‐implant impressions: Comparison of five different techniques |
| title_short | Accuracy of tooth‐implant impressions: Comparison of five different techniques |
| title_sort | accuracy of tooth implant impressions comparison of five different techniques |
| topic | dental implants dental impression technique dimensional measurement accuracy tooth |
| url | https://doi.org/10.1002/cre2.737 |
| work_keys_str_mv | AT amirhosseinfathi accuracyoftoothimplantimpressionscomparisonoffivedifferenttechniques AT mansourrismanchian accuracyoftoothimplantimpressionscomparisonoffivedifferenttechniques AT atousayazdekhasti accuracyoftoothimplantimpressionscomparisonoffivedifferenttechniques AT masihsalamati accuracyoftoothimplantimpressionscomparisonoffivedifferenttechniques |