Home Subscription Services

Quintessence International
QI Home Page
About the Editor
Editorial Board
Accepted Manuscripts
Author Guidelines
Submission Form
Reprints / Articles
Quintessence Publishing: Journals: QI
Quintessence International

Edited by Eli Eliav

ISSN 0033-6572 (print) • ISSN 1936-7163 (online)

January 2014
Volume 45 , Issue 1

Share Abstract:

Multi-unit implant impression accuracy: A review of the literature

Baig, Mirza Rustum

Pages: 39-51
PMID: 24392494
DOI: 10.3290/j.qi.a30769

Background: Accurate implant impressions are critical for the achievement of passive fit of an implant prosthesis which in turn contributes to the long-term success of the implant treatment. There is inconclusive evidence on the techniques and materials used for making multi-unit implant impressions. Objective: To evaluate the scientific data related to different aspects of multi-unit implant impression accuracy and draw useful conclusions from the review for application in clinical practice. Method and Materials: Studies from 1990 to November 2012 were evaluated. Papers examining implant impression accuracy for two or more implants were selected for review. Case reports, technique articles, and incomplete studies were excluded. Fifty-nine studies were selected in total for evaluation, three among them clinical and the rest in vitro. Results: Fifteen studies compared PVS (polyvinyl siloxane) and PE (polyether), 11 found no differences between the two materials in terms of impression accuracy. Thirty studies analyzed the splint effect, 13 found splinting better and 13 others elicited no differences between splinting and non-splinting. Among the 25 studies examining pickup and transfer impression techniques, 12 favored pickup over transfer and 11 found no differences between the two. Twelve studies assessed implant angulation effects and found significant differences in accuracy for 20- to 25-degree angulation, and no differences for 5- to 15-degree angulation for most studies, except two. Conclusion: PVS and PE were the preferred impression materials for multi-unit implant impressions. The evidence on splinting was inconclusive and the data supporting splint to non-splint were neutral. Pickup was the better performing technique than transfer, especially with increased number of implants. Implant angulation of 20 to 25 degrees negatively affected the multi-unit implant impression accuracy. Keywords: accuracy, angulated implants, digital impressions, impression material, misfit, multi-unit implant impressions, passive fit, splinting

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.
  © 2020 Quintessence Publishing Co Inc

Home | Subscription Services | Books | Journals | Multimedia | Events | Blog
Terms of Use | Privacy Policy | About Us | Contact Us | Advertising | Help | Sitemap | Catalog