Search citation statements
Paper Sections
Citation Types
Year Published
Publication Types
Relationship
Authors
Journals
Background The utilization of splinting techniques for impression copings is commonly advised for complex implant-supported prostheses, as it can enhance the fit of these prostheses. However, there is limited understanding regarding the impact of the secondary splinting of implant analogues, on the passive fit of the prostheses. Limited data are available on the secondary splinting of implant analogues before pouring the impression and its comparison with the primary technique of intraoral splinting of impression copings prior to impression making. Objectives This study's objective was to determine the impact of the primary versus secondary impression splinting techniques using resin on the passive fit of screw-retained prosthesis. Material and methods This randomized clinical trial (RCT) involved two parallel groups consisting of 14 completely edentulous patients, with seven patients in each group. Each patient received a total of eight implants, four implants per arch, resulting in a total of 28 screw-retained prostheses. Two different impression splinting techniques were employed. Group (1) utilized the primary splinting technique, where the impression copings were splinted before taking the impression. In contrast, Group (2) utilized the secondary splinting technique, where the implant analogues were splinted before pouring the impression material. To evaluate the passivity of the screw-retained prostheses in both groups, a single-screw test (one-screw test) was used. Additionally, supplementary methods, including the screw resistance test, were employed. Results The findings of this RCT revealed higher passivity scores for secondary splinting impression pouring technique with a statistically significant difference (P = 0.082). There was a 2.2-fold greater frequency of non-passivity in the primary splinted method. In group (2), the likelihood of non-passivity was four times higher for upper arches prostheses, while there was no significant difference (P = 0.5) observed in both groups for lower arches prostheses. Conclusions The study found that using the secondary splinting impression pouring technique resulted in greater passivity of the implant prostheses compared to the primary splinting impression technique.
Background The utilization of splinting techniques for impression copings is commonly advised for complex implant-supported prostheses, as it can enhance the fit of these prostheses. However, there is limited understanding regarding the impact of the secondary splinting of implant analogues, on the passive fit of the prostheses. Limited data are available on the secondary splinting of implant analogues before pouring the impression and its comparison with the primary technique of intraoral splinting of impression copings prior to impression making. Objectives This study's objective was to determine the impact of the primary versus secondary impression splinting techniques using resin on the passive fit of screw-retained prosthesis. Material and methods This randomized clinical trial (RCT) involved two parallel groups consisting of 14 completely edentulous patients, with seven patients in each group. Each patient received a total of eight implants, four implants per arch, resulting in a total of 28 screw-retained prostheses. Two different impression splinting techniques were employed. Group (1) utilized the primary splinting technique, where the impression copings were splinted before taking the impression. In contrast, Group (2) utilized the secondary splinting technique, where the implant analogues were splinted before pouring the impression material. To evaluate the passivity of the screw-retained prostheses in both groups, a single-screw test (one-screw test) was used. Additionally, supplementary methods, including the screw resistance test, were employed. Results The findings of this RCT revealed higher passivity scores for secondary splinting impression pouring technique with a statistically significant difference (P = 0.082). There was a 2.2-fold greater frequency of non-passivity in the primary splinted method. In group (2), the likelihood of non-passivity was four times higher for upper arches prostheses, while there was no significant difference (P = 0.5) observed in both groups for lower arches prostheses. Conclusions The study found that using the secondary splinting impression pouring technique resulted in greater passivity of the implant prostheses compared to the primary splinting impression technique.
Context: Dimensional precision in implant impression. Aims: The purpose of this study was to comparatively evaluate the dimensional accuracy of two implant impression techniques with two different variants of vinyl polysiloxane impression material. Material and Methods: The edentulous mandible reference model was fabricated in clear resin. In the anterior region of the mandibular ridge, three dummy implants were placed in a spread-out configuration. Impressions were made using two elastomeric impression materials and two impression techniques using customised impression trays. Finished casts were then divided into four groups having four samples each. The mean centre-to-centre distances between adjacent analogues (in sample casts) and between adjacent implants (in the control cast) were measured with the help of a profile projector. Statistical Analysis Used: Data were analysed using Student’s t-test. Results: The open-tray technique showed more accurate results with a combination of medium body and light body, whereas in the closed tray technique, mono-phase vinyl polysiloxane appeared to be a better option. Amongst all, mono-phase with closed tray provided statistically significant results. P < 0.05 in Group C and other group’s P ≥ 0.05. Conclusions: Within the limitations of this study, both implant impression techniques appeared to be equally accurate depending on clinical conditions, temperature and time of the procedure. However, mono-phase impression material with closed tray provided statistically significant results.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.