Quintessence Publishing Publisher of professional dental  journals, books, and multimedia
 
 
 
Subscriber Access
Login
First Time User?
Forgot Your Password?
 
The International Journal of Oral & Maxillofacial Implants
JOMI Home Page
About the Editor
Editorial Board
Submit
Author Guidelines
Submission Form
Reprints / Articles
Permissions
Advertising
MEDLINE Search
 
Online Store
Books
Journals
Videos and Multimedia
View Cart

Current Publication:
The International Journal of Oral & Maxillofacial Implants
July/August
Volume 25, Issue 4

Back

Comparison of Impression Techniques and Materials for an Implant-Supported Prosthesis

Marcelo Antonialli Del’Acqua, DDS, PhD/Alejandro Muñoz Chávez, DDS, PhD/Ângela Líbia Chagas Amaral, DDS, MSc/Marco Antonio Compagnoni, DDS, PhD/Francisco de Assis Mollo Jr, DDS, PhD

Purpose: To investigate, in vitro, the dimensional accuracy of two impression techniques (squared impression copings and squared impression copings sandblasted and coated with impression adhesive) made of vinyl polysiloxane and polyether impression materials. Materials and Methods: A master cast (control group) with four parallel implant abutment analogs, a passive framework, and a custom aluminum tray was fabricated. Four groups (n = 5 each group) were tested: squared Impregum (SI), squared Express (SE), sandblasted adhesive squared Impregum (ASI), and sandblasted adhesive squared Express (ASE). The measurement method employed was just one titanium screw tightened to the framework. A stereomicroscope was used to evaluate the fit of the framework by measuring the size of the gap between the abutment and the framework. The results were analyzed statistically. Results: The mean values for the abutment/framework interface gaps were: master cast, 31.63 µm (SD 2.16); SI, 38.03 µm (SD 9.29); ASI, 46.80 µm (SD 8.47); SE, 151.21 µm (SD 22.79); and ASE, 136.59 µm (SD 29.80). No significant difference was detected between the SI or ASI techniques and the master cast. No significant difference was detected between the SE and ASE techniques. Conclusion: Within the limitations of this study, it can be concluded that Impregum Soft medium consistency was the best impression material and the impression technique did not influence the accuracy of the stone casts. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 2010;25:771–776

Key words: dental implant, implant impression technique, impression material

View entire article
HTML
PDF

 

All Rights Reserved