Share Page:

Volume 28 , Issue 1
January/February 2013

Pages 228240

Comparison of the Accuracy of Biomet 3i Encode Robocast Technology and Conventional Implant Impression Techniques

Kent J. Howell, DMD, MS/Edwin A. McGlumphy, DDS, MS/Carl Drago, DDS, MS/Gregory Knapik, BS, MS

PMID: 23377070
DOI: 10.11607/jomi.2546

Purpose: To compare the accuracy of implant master casts fabricated using Robocast Technology (Biomet 3i) with that of master casts fabricated using traditional transfer (closed-tray) and pick-up (open-tray) techniques. Materials and Methods: A stereolithographic replica of a Kennedy Class I human mandible was fabricated for use as the master model. Implants were placed into both posterior quadrants (both second premolars and second molars) and set parallel (P) on one side and divergent (nonparallel, NP) on the opposite side. Impressions were made of the master model (patient replica model) with Encode Healing Abutments, open-tray, and closed-tray impression copings. Identical metallic spheres were placed onto each implant analog in the stone master casts, and the casts/spheres were scanned using a digital scanner. Measurements were made between the center points of the spheres and compared to the master model. Data were divided into P, NP, and individual sites, and the differences were analyzed statistically (α = .05). Results: Encode master casts were less accurate than the open-tray casts in NP sites. Encode master casts were less accurate than the open-tray and closed-tray casts in P sites. NP sites demonstrated less accuracy than P sites within the Encode group. Encode master casts were less accurate than the open- and closed-tray casts at the mandibular right second premolar site. The mandibular left second premolar was less accurate than the mandibular right second molar in the Encode group. Conclusions: Within the limitations of this lab-based study and analysis, the Encode technique resulted in master casts that were less accurate than master casts made from traditional open- and closed-tray impression techniques. Further research is necessary before specific clinical judgments can be made. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 2013;28:228240. doi: 10.11607/jomi.2546

Key words: digital scanning, Encode, implant impressions, Robocasts

Full Text PDF File | Order Article


Get Adobe Reader
Adobe Acrobat Reader is required to view PDF files. This is a free program available from the Adobe web site.
Follow the download directions on the Adobe web site to get your copy of Adobe Acrobat Reader.


© 2022 Quintessence Publishing Co, Inc JOMI Home
Current Issue
Ahead of Print
Author Guidelines
Accepted Manuscripts
Submission Form
Quintessence Home
Terms of Use
Privacy Policy
About Us
Contact Us