Accuracy of implant transfer and surface detail reproduction with polyether and polyvinyl siloxane using closed-tray impression technique
Background and Aims: Making accurate impressions of prepared teeth when they are adjacent to dental implants is of great importance. In these situations, disregarding the selection of appropriate impression material and technique, not only can affect accuracy of transferring of the 3-dimentional spa...
| Main Authors: | , , |
|---|---|
| Format: | Article |
| Language: | fas |
| Published: |
Tehran University of Medical Sciences
2013-10-01
|
| Series: | Journal of Dental Medicine |
| Subjects: | |
| Online Access: | http://jdm.tums.ac.ir/browse.php?a_code=A-10-25-722&slc_lang=en&sid=1 |
| Summary: | Background and Aims: Making accurate impressions of prepared teeth when they are adjacent to dental implants is of great importance. In these situations, disregarding the selection of appropriate impression material and technique, not only can affect accuracy of transferring of the 3-dimentional spatial status of implant, but also can jeopardize the accurate recording of tooth. In the present study, the accuracy of two impression materials with taper impression copings for recording implant position and surface details was evaluated. Materials and Methods: One metal reference model with 2 implants (Implantium) and a preparation of three grooves on a tooth according to ADA no. 19 standard was fabricated. 10 medium- consistency polyEther (PE) impressions using custom trays and 10 polyVinyl Siloxane (PVS) putty wash impressions using prefabricated trays with conical impression coping were made. Impressions were poured with ADA type IV stone. A Coordinate Measuring Machine (CMM) evaluated x, y and angular displacement of the implant analog heads and also accuracy of groove reproduction were measured using a Video Measuring Machine (VMM). These measurements were compared to the ones from reference model. Data were analyzed using one-way ANOVA and T-test. Results: Putty wash PVS had less linear discrepancy compared with reference model (P > 0.001). There was no significant difference in the surface detail reproduction (P = 0.15). Conclusion: Putty wash PVS had better results for linear displacement compared with medium consistency PE. There was no significant difference in surface detail reproduction between the two impression materials. |
|---|---|
| ISSN: | 1024-641X 2008-2444 |