Accuracy of open tray implant impressions: An in vitro comparison of stock versus custom trays

Burns, J. William; Palmer, Richard; Howe, Leslie C.; Wilson, Ron

doi:10.1067/mpr.2003.38

Cited by 94 publications

(89 citation statements)

References 16 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…[10][11][12] As in conventional prosthesis, abutments can be transfered individually or together, with different materials and techniques: indirect or closed tray technique, di-rect or open tray technique and direct-splinted technique. [13][14][15][16] There may be clinical situations in which the use of the closed tray technique is indicated, such as when there is limited inter-arch space, difficult access to posterior implants and angulated implants. 15,16 The open tray technique allows the coping to remain in the impression.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Evaluation of the accuracy of different transfer impression techniques for multiple implants

et al. 2011

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The aim of this study was to evaluate the accuracy of three implant transfer impression techniques. Four groups (n = 5) were defined, according to the technique: TC -tapered copings without splint; SCsquare copings without splint; SCS -square copings splinted with dental floss and acrylic resin, and CG (control group) -master model with four external hexagonal implants and a superstructure. Individual trays and polyether were used for the impression. All casts were checked for their fit into the master superstructure; for this, all four screws were placed in the implants. Digital photos were taken and images were analyzed using UTHSCSA ImageTool software. Statistical analyses were performed using one-way analysis of variance and Student's t test (p < 0.05). The means and standard deviation were (µm): CG = 2.03 ± 0.00, TC = 14.74 ± 3.41, SC = 12.08 ± 2.56, and SCS = 6.51 ± 0.09. The control group was found to be statistically different from the TC and SC groups. Within the limitations of this study, all groups presented clinically acceptable standard gap values, and the SCS group showed no statistical difference in relation to the CG (control group), demonstrating more accuracy and fidelity to transfer implants.

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Evaluation of the accuracy of different transfer impression techniques for multiple implants

et al. 2011

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The rigidity and stability of the individual tray minimize the distortions of the impression and makes it possible to obtain homogeneous thickness [34,35].…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Microdeformation of Infrastructure for Implant-Supported fixed Dental Prosthesis by Strain-Gauge Method: Influence of Technique and Material Impression

Tonetto¹,

Ebrahim²,

Nogueira³

et al. 2015

Pesqui. bras. odontopediatria clín. integr.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objective: To verify the structural microdeformation by strain gages, around implants that have metal infrastructure, obtained by different materials and techniques impressions. Material and Methods: Three internal hexagon implants in polyurethane block (master model) with abutments were taken the impression with differents materials and techniques impression (n=4): addition silicon and transfer for open tray technique (Group I), condensation silicon and transfer for closed tray technique (Group II); and polyether and transfer for open tray techniques (Group III). Impressions were poured with type IV stone. Metallic infrastructure were made and installed in the master model by an aid of a manual ratchet wrench. A torque of 20N was used to install the metallic infrastructure. Microdeformation analysis was performed around the implants by strain gauge method. Two gauges were inserted into the polyurethane base, and three measurements were taken for each infrastructure. Data were analyzed using descriptive statistics and inference. Kruskal-Wallis test was used to verify association between materials and impression techniques and deformation around the implants, at 5% confidence. Results: Microdeformations around the implants showed no statistically significant difference (p = 0.123) between the experimental groups, Group I (215.8 µε), Group II (194.9 µε) and Group III (297.4 µε). Conclusion: The use of different materials and techniques impression to made of infrastructures for fixed implant-supported dental prosthesis did not present difference in microdeformation values around implants.

show abstract

“…Burns i wsp. 70 wykazali, iż wyciski pobrane za pomocą sztywnej łyżki indywidualnej są znacząco dokładniejsze niż pobrane z wykorzystaniem standardowych łyżek plastikowych (polikarboidowych). Özkan i wsp.…”

Section: Rodzaj łYżki Wyciskowejunclassified

Current methods and techniques of implant impressions: A literature review

Niedźwiecki¹,

Gajdus²,

Piosik³

et al. 2015

Protet Stomatol

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Accuracy of open tray implant impressions: An in vitro comparison of stock versus custom trays

Cited by 94 publications

References 16 publications

Evaluation of the accuracy of different transfer impression techniques for multiple implants

Evaluation of the accuracy of different transfer impression techniques for multiple implants

Microdeformation of Infrastructure for Implant-Supported fixed Dental Prosthesis by Strain-Gauge Method: Influence of Technique and Material Impression

Current methods and techniques of implant impressions: A literature review

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About