MedElevator
Войти в исследования The Journal of prosthetic dentistry · 2026
Effect of tray type and subsplint reinforcement on the trueness of complete arch implant impressions: An in vitro study.
СтатьяНазвание 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.
Kurdi Lujain, Thompson Geoffrey A, Drago Carl, Karczewski Michael B, El-Shewy Mohamed
Аннотация
STATEMENT OF PROBLEM: Accurate implant impressions are essential for producing accurate definitive casts for implant-supported fixed dental prostheses. The influence of subsplint reinforcement with heavy-body polyvinyl siloxane (PVS) on impression accuracy remains uncertain.
PURPOSE: The purpose of this in vitro investigation was to evaluate the effects of tray type and subsplint reinforcement with heavy-body PVS on the trueness of transferred implant analog positions in maxillary complete arch implant impressions.
MATERIAL AND METHODS: Four experimental conditions were evaluated according to tray type (stock or custom) and subsplint reinforcement (with or without heavy-body PVS) (n=9 per group). In the nonreinforced groups, heavy-body PVS was placed in the tray, and light-body PVS was applied around the splinted impression copings. In the reinforced groups, heavy-body PVS was placed gingival to the splinting device and polymerized before impression making. Definitive casts were digitized and superimposed onto a control model. Trueness was quantified by calculating the 3-dimensional root mean square (RMS) deviation between scan body surfaces. Data were analyzed with 2-way analysis of variance (α=.05), with permutation ANOVA and heteroscedasticity-consistent (HC3) analyses performed as sensitivity analyses.
RESULTS: RMS values ranged from 36 to 580 µm. Subsplint reinforcement did not significantly affect trueness (P=.104). The primary analysis demonstrated a statistically significant effect of tray type on trueness (P=.045), with custom trays producing definitive casts with greater trueness than stock trays. No significant interaction effect was observed (P=.099). The permutation ANOVA supported the significant effect of tray type (P=.011), whereas the HC3 analysis did not identify a statistically significant effect of tray type (P=.112).
CONCLUSIONS: Within the limitations of this in vitro investigation, the primary analysis demonstrated greater trueness with custom trays than with stock trays, whereas subsplint reinforcement with heavy-body PVS did not significantly improve trueness. No statistically significant interaction between tray type and subsplint reinforcement was identified. Because the statistical significance of the effect of tray type varied according to the analytical approach, these findings should be interpreted with appropriate caution.
PURPOSE: The purpose of this in vitro investigation was to evaluate the effects of tray type and subsplint reinforcement with heavy-body PVS on the trueness of transferred implant analog positions in maxillary complete arch implant impressions.
MATERIAL AND METHODS: Four experimental conditions were evaluated according to tray type (stock or custom) and subsplint reinforcement (with or without heavy-body PVS) (n=9 per group). In the nonreinforced groups, heavy-body PVS was placed in the tray, and light-body PVS was applied around the splinted impression copings. In the reinforced groups, heavy-body PVS was placed gingival to the splinting device and polymerized before impression making. Definitive casts were digitized and superimposed onto a control model. Trueness was quantified by calculating the 3-dimensional root mean square (RMS) deviation between scan body surfaces. Data were analyzed with 2-way analysis of variance (α=.05), with permutation ANOVA and heteroscedasticity-consistent (HC3) analyses performed as sensitivity analyses.
RESULTS: RMS values ranged from 36 to 580 µm. Subsplint reinforcement did not significantly affect trueness (P=.104). The primary analysis demonstrated a statistically significant effect of tray type on trueness (P=.045), with custom trays producing definitive casts with greater trueness than stock trays. No significant interaction effect was observed (P=.099). The permutation ANOVA supported the significant effect of tray type (P=.011), whereas the HC3 analysis did not identify a statistically significant effect of tray type (P=.112).
CONCLUSIONS: Within the limitations of this in vitro investigation, the primary analysis demonstrated greater trueness with custom trays than with stock trays, whereas subsplint reinforcement with heavy-body PVS did not significantly improve trueness. No statistically significant interaction between tray type and subsplint reinforcement was identified. Because the statistical significance of the effect of tray type varied according to the analytical approach, these findings should be interpreted with appropriate caution.