The Journal of prosthetic dentistry · 2014
Accuracy of a self-perforating impression tray for dental implants.
Сравнительное исследованиеСтатьяПоддержка исследования: вне правительства СШАНазвание 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.
Marotti Juliana, Tortamano Pedro, Castilho Tatiana R R N, Steagall Washington, Wolfart Stefan, Haselhuhn Klaus
Аннотация
STATEMENT OF PROBLEM: Difficulties are involved in impression making with conventional open impression trays.
PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to evaluate the accuracy of transferring implant impressions with a self-perforating impression tray.
MATERIAL AND METHODS: A reference model of a mandible was fabricated, and 4 implants were placed in the regions of the first premolars and lateral incisors (implants 1, 2, 3, 4). Ten impressions of the reference model with polyvinyl siloxane were made for each group; control (conventional open impression tray) and test (self-perforating impression tray; Miratray Implant). A metal bar was screw-retained on implant 1, and the gaps generated at the vestibular face of implants 3 and 4 were measured by optical microcopy. The 2-way ANOVA and least square difference post hoc test were used (α=.05).
RESULTS: Higher mean (±SD) values were obtained for the test group than for the control group for both implants: implant 3: 150 ±84 μm for the test group, 73 ±63 μm for the control group (P=.019); implant 4: 129 ±65 μm for the test group, 62 ±61 μm for the control group (P=.04).
CONCLUSION: The self-perforating impression tray provided less accuracy than the conventional open tray.
PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to evaluate the accuracy of transferring implant impressions with a self-perforating impression tray.
MATERIAL AND METHODS: A reference model of a mandible was fabricated, and 4 implants were placed in the regions of the first premolars and lateral incisors (implants 1, 2, 3, 4). Ten impressions of the reference model with polyvinyl siloxane were made for each group; control (conventional open impression tray) and test (self-perforating impression tray; Miratray Implant). A metal bar was screw-retained on implant 1, and the gaps generated at the vestibular face of implants 3 and 4 were measured by optical microcopy. The 2-way ANOVA and least square difference post hoc test were used (α=.05).
RESULTS: Higher mean (±SD) values were obtained for the test group than for the control group for both implants: implant 3: 150 ±84 μm for the test group, 73 ±63 μm for the control group (P=.019); implant 4: 129 ±65 μm for the test group, 62 ±61 μm for the control group (P=.04).
CONCLUSION: The self-perforating impression tray provided less accuracy than the conventional open tray.