Implant cast accuracy as a function of impression techniques and impression material viscosity.

Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants

Departments of Restorative Dentistry and Oral Biology, University of Missouri-Kansas City School of Dentistry, Kansas City, Missouri 64108, USA.

Published: November 2008

Purpose: The aim of this study was to compare implant cast accuracy as a function of impression technique, closed tray impressions using indirect, metal impression copings at the implant level or direct, plastic impression caps at the abutment level, and impression material viscosity combinations.

Materials And Methods: A stainless steel master model with three implant replicas was utilized to produce Type IV stone casts. Master model impressions were made using closed trays at the implant level with screw-on metal impression copings (indirect/implant level) or at the abutment level with snap-on plastic impression caps (direct/abutment level). With both techniques, either medium-body or heavy-body polyether impression material was syringed around the implant impression coping or abutment impression cap with medium body material in a custom tray. Twenty casts were produced with 5 casts in each test group. A measuring microscope (0.001 mm accuracy) was used to measure cast inter-implant or inter-abutment distances. Cast accuracy was calculated based on the percent difference of the measurements as compared to the master model.

Results: A repeated measures 2-factor ANOVA (alpha = .05) indicated no significant difference in cast accuracy as a function of impression viscosity. However, cast accuracy was significantly different between casts made with indirect/implant level versus direct/abutment level impressions. With the plastic impression caps, the cast inter-abutment distances were larger than the master model, with mean percent differences of 0.19% to 0.24% across the 3 measurement sites. In contrast, with the metal impression coping impressions, the cast inter-implant distances were almost equal to or slightly smaller than the master model, with mean percent differences -0.06% to 0.02%.

Conclusions: Impression material viscosity does not appear to be a critical factor for implant cast accuracy. However, casts made with indirect, metal impression copings might be more accurate than casts made with direct, plastic impression caps. This could be an especially important factor with casts used to fabricate multiple-implant restorations.

Download full-text PDF

Source

Publication Analysis

Top Keywords

cast accuracy
24
impression
17
impression material
16
metal impression
16
plastic impression
16
impression caps
16
master model
16
implant cast
12
accuracy function
12
function impression
12

Similar Publications

In mammalian oocytes, large-scale chromatin organization regulates transcription, nuclear architecture, and maintenance of chromosome stability in preparation for meiosis onset. Pre-ovulatory oocytes with distinct chromatin configurations exhibit profound differences in metabolic and transcriptional profiles that ultimately determine meiotic competence and developmental potential. Here, we developed a deep learning pipeline for the non-invasive prediction of chromatin structure and developmental potential in live mouse oocytes.

View Article and Find Full Text PDF

Purpose: The popularity of minimally invasive (MIS) foot surgery continues to grow. However, it comes with certain limitations that present notable challenges. One significant hurdle is the absence of direct visualization of neurovascular structures and tendons.

View Article and Find Full Text PDF

Background/purpose: Different types of scanners are gradually used to produce digital dental casts in the current dental practice. This study tested the accuracy of the three desktop scanners and two intraoral scanners and evaluated whether the desktop scanners had higher precision than the intraoral scanners.

Materials And Methods: This study used the three desktop and two intraoral scanners to scan a standard dental cast 5 times.

View Article and Find Full Text PDF

Aim: This study investigated the accuracy of intraoral scanner (IOS) based on different image acquisition technologies in the field of presurgical-orthopedictreatment (PSOT) in neonates with cleft.

Methods: Dental cast models of clinical situations representing unilateral cleft-lip-palate(UCLP), bilateral cleft-lippalate( BCLP) and cleft-palate(CP) with reference PEEK-scanbodies (Cares RC Mono-Scankörper, Straumann, Switzerland) were scanned utilizing four IOS systems: CareStream-CS3600®(CS), Medit-i500®(MD), Cerec-Omnicam®(SO), 3Shape-Trios-3®(TS). One calibrated operator made 5 scans from each model using each IOS (N=60).

View Article and Find Full Text PDF

Background: While the majority of dentists and lab techs recommend dental-specific desktop printers, many of them use cheaper, more affordable 3D printers in their practice. The study aimed to compare the accuracy of two commercial non-dental stereolithography (SLA) 3D printers with a dental 3D printer for diagnostic dental casts.  Methods: A prototype stereolithographic (Standard Triangle/Tessellation Language (STL)) model of a dentoform was used as a master model to be printed by three 3D printers (n=10 for each printer).

View Article and Find Full Text PDF

Want AI Summaries of new PubMed Abstracts delivered to your In-box?

Enter search terms and have AI summaries delivered each week - change queries or unsubscribe any time!