Head & face medicine · 2020
Comparison of the accuracy of different impression procedures in case of multiple and angulated implants : Accuracy of impressions in multiple and angulated implants.
Сравнительное исследованиеСтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Richi M Wafa, Kurtulmus-Yilmaz Sevcan, Ozan Oguz
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: There is no consensus in the literature regarding the impression procedures in the presence of multiple and angulated implants.
METHODS: Three maxillary master models with 6 implants bilaterally positioned in anterior, premolar and molar regions were fabricated. In model 1, all implants were placed in parallel; in models 2 and 3, anterior implants were buccally inclined and posterior implants were distally inclined in 10- and 20-degrees, respectively. Three different impression copings (hexed, non-hex, multi-unit) and two different impression techniques (splinting and non-splinting) were tested. A total of 180 impressions (n = 10 per group) were made using mono-phase vinyl poly-siloxane. Master models and duplicate casts were scanned by a 5-axis laboratory scanner and data were transferred to a software program for the alignment of master and duplicate copings. Coronal and angular deviations were calculated, and data were statistically analyzed.
RESULTS: For angulated models, the lowest deviation values were detected at the splinted non-hex coping group (P < 0.05).
CONCLUSIONS: Implant angulation, impression coping type, and splinting the impression copings had significant effects on the accuracy of impressions.
TRIAL REGISTRATION: Not applicable.
METHODS: Three maxillary master models with 6 implants bilaterally positioned in anterior, premolar and molar regions were fabricated. In model 1, all implants were placed in parallel; in models 2 and 3, anterior implants were buccally inclined and posterior implants were distally inclined in 10- and 20-degrees, respectively. Three different impression copings (hexed, non-hex, multi-unit) and two different impression techniques (splinting and non-splinting) were tested. A total of 180 impressions (n = 10 per group) were made using mono-phase vinyl poly-siloxane. Master models and duplicate casts were scanned by a 5-axis laboratory scanner and data were transferred to a software program for the alignment of master and duplicate copings. Coronal and angular deviations were calculated, and data were statistically analyzed.
RESULTS: For angulated models, the lowest deviation values were detected at the splinted non-hex coping group (P < 0.05).
CONCLUSIONS: Implant angulation, impression coping type, and splinting the impression copings had significant effects on the accuracy of impressions.
TRIAL REGISTRATION: Not applicable.