Comparative Evaluation of the Effects of Implant Position, Impression Material, and Tray Type on Implant Impression Accuracy

Röhlig, Bilge Gökçen; Öngül, Değer; Sancaklı, Erkan; Şermet, Bülent

doi:10.1097/id.0000000000000059

Cited by 9 publications

(16 citation statements)

References 22 publications

(5 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Conventional implant impressions were performed with the open tray method (Akalin et al., ; Aldosari, ; Aldosari et al., ; Amin et al., ; de Avila, de Matos Moraes, Castanharo, Del'Acqua, & de Assis Mollo, ; Bergin et al., ; Beyabanaki, Shamshiri, Alikhasi, & Monzavi, ; Buzayan, Baig, & Yunus, ; Di Fiore et al., ; Ehsani et al., ; Geramipanah, Sahebi, Davari, Hajimahmoudi, & Rakhshan, ; Ghahremanloo et al., ; Ghanem, Nassani, Baroudi, & Abdel Fattah, ; Gupta et al., ; Heidari et al., ; Lin et al., ; Marotti et al., ; Ongül et al., ; Ono et al., ; Papaspyridakos et al., ; Perez‐Davidi et al., ; Pozzi et al., ; Pujari, Garg, & Prithviraj, ; Selvaraj, Dorairaj, Mohan & Simon, ; Vigolo, Mutinelli, Fonzi & Stellini, ; Vojdani, Torabi, & Ansarifard, ; Zen et al., ), the closed tray method (Abdel‐Azim et al., ; Calesini et al., ; Del'acqua, de Avila, Amaral, Pinelli, & de Assis Mollo, ; Gökçen‐Rohlig et al., ; Ibrahim, Fouad, Elewa, & Mustafa, ; Ibrahim & Ghuneim, ; Karl et al., ; Lee et al., ; Reddy, Prasad, Vakil, Jain, & Chowdhary, ) or both the open and closed tray methods for comparison of the accuracy (Al Quran et al., ; Alikhasi, Siadat, Beyabanaki, & Kharazifard, ; Alikhasi, Siadat, & Rahimian, ; de Avila, Barros, Del'Acqua, Castanharo, & Mollo Fde, ; BalaMurugan & Manimaran, ; Chang, Vahidi, Bae, & Lim, ; Haghi, Shiehzadeh, Nakhaei, Ahrary, & Sabzevari, ; Hazboun, ; Howell et al., ; Karl & Palarie, ; Mpikos et al., ; Nakhaei, Madani, Moraditalab, & Haghi, ; Ng et al., ; Pera et al., ; Rutkunas, Sveikata, & Savickas, ; Sabouhi et al., , ; ...…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Impression copings are either retained in the cured impression material (pick‐up method) (Di Fiore et al., ; Papaspyridakos et al., ; Pera, Pesce, Bevilacqua, Setti, & Menini, ) or remain in the implants and are repositioned in the respective regions in the impression after it is removed from the mouth (transfer method) (Calesini et al., ; Ibrahim & Ghuneim, ). Replacement of transfer copings after removal of the impression from the mouth may be facilitated by plastic caps seated on transfer copings that are retained in the impression (Abdel‐Azim, Zandinejad, Elathamna, Lin, & Morton, ; Gökçen‐Rohlig, Ongül, Sancakli, & Sermet, ).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

The accuracy of different dental impression techniques for implant‐supported dental prostheses: A systematic review and meta‐analysis

Flügge

Meer

Gimenez-Gonzalez

et al. 2018

Clinical Oral Implants Res

145

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Aim: This systematic review and meta-analysis were conducted to assess and compare the accuracy of conventional and digital implant impressions. The review was registered on the PROSPERO register (registration number: CRD42016050730). Material and Methods:A systematic literature search was conducted adhering to PRISMA guidelines to identify studies on implant impressions published between 2012 and 2017. Experimental and clinical studies at all levels of evidence published in peer-reviewed journals were included, excluding expert opinions. Data extraction was performed along defined parameters for studied specimens, digital and conventional impression specifications and outcome assessment. Results: Seventy-nine studies were included for the systematic review, thereof 77 experimental studies, one RCT and one retrospective study. The study setting was in vitro for most of the included studies (75 studies) and in vivo for four studies. Accuracy of conventional impressions was examined in 59 studies, whereas digital impressions were examined in 11 studies. Nine studies compared the accuracy of conventional and digital implant impressions. Reported measurements for the accuracy include the following: (a) linear and angular deviations between reference models and test models fabricated with each impression technique; (b) threedimensional deviations between impression posts and scan bodies respectively; and (c) fit of implant-supported frameworks, assessed by measuring marginal discrepancy along implant abutments.) Meta-analysis was performed of 62 studies. The results of conventional and digital implant impressions exhibited high values for heterogeneity. Conclusions: The available data for accuracy of digital and conventional implant impressions have a low evidence level and do not include sufficient data on in vivo application to derive clinical recommendations. K E Y W O R D S computer-aided design, digital implant impressions, implant impressions, intraoral scanningThis is an open access article under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial License, which permits use, distribution and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited and is not used for commercial purposes.

show abstract

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

The accuracy of different dental impression techniques for implant‐supported dental prostheses: A systematic review and meta‐analysis

Flügge

Meer

Gimenez-Gonzalez

et al. 2018

Clinical Oral Implants Res

145

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Only dental implant I1 showed a statistical difference in the mean gap value for self-perforating and custom trays. Although Gökçen-Rohlig et alfound different accuracies for posterior and anterior dental implants, in this study this difference was not attributed to the implant location, but to the impression technique 17. According to Burns et al, the accuracy of impression depends on tray rigidity, which does not allow distortion of the impression 1.…”

mentioning

confidence: 52%

“…Several studies reported the influence of impression technique and implant position on the accuracy of dental casts. [16][17][18][19][20][21][22][23] With this regard, gap measurements are commonly used to evaluate the fit of implants; hence, most studies use the gap width to evaluate the marginal discrepancy. 1,9,24,25 Thus, the aim of this study was to evaluate the accuracy of the self-perforating tray for taking an implant impression of the edentulous maxilla when compared with the conventional pick-up technique.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Accuracy of self-perforating impression tray for maxillary dental implant

Bohner¹,

Marques²,

Keedi³

et al. 2018

Clin Lab Res Dent

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

| Objectives: To analyze the accuracy of a pre-fabricated self-perforating tray for implant impression in an edentulous maxilla. Methods: Four implants (13,16,23, 26) were placed in an acrylic resin model of an edentulous maxilla. Implant impressions (n = 7) were taken using a customized open tray (Control Group) and a pre-fabricated selfperforating tray (Test Group). A metal bar was fabricated and screw-retained on implant 13 and the vestibular gap between the framework and implants was measured by stereomicroscopy on implants 16, 23, and 26. Data were analyzed by ANOVA repeated measures and Tukey tests with a significance level (α) of 0.05. Results: There was no statistical difference between self-perforating and customized open tray groups. Control group showed a gap of 73.31± 26.01 for I1; 149.16± 53.90 for I2; and 115.46± 73.34 for I3. Whereas Test Group showed a gap of 154.41± 74.64 for I1; 159.45± 87.64 for I2; and 109.28± 49.18 for I3. Conclusion: The pre-fabricated self-perforating and custom trays showed a similar accuracy for implant impression of edentulous maxilla. DESCRIPTORS | Impression Technique; Dental Implants; Dimensional Measurement Accuracy. RESUMO | Precisão de moldeira autoperfurante para impressão de implante dentário maxilar • Objetivos: Analisar a precisão de uma moldeira autoperfurante de impressão pré-fabricada para implantes na maxila edêntula. Métodos: Quatro implantes (13,16,23, 26) foram colocados em um modelo de resina acrílica de uma maxila edêntula. As impressões dos implantes (n = 7) foram tiradas com uma moldeira aberta customizada (Grupo Controle) e uma moldeira autoperfurante pré-fabricada (Grupo Teste). Uma barra de metal foi fabricada e aparafusada no implante 13, e o gap vestibular entre a estrutura e os implantes foi medido por estereomicroscopia nos implantes 16, 23 e 26. Os dados foram analisados por Anova de medidas repetidas e teste de Tukey, com um nível de significância (α) de 0,05. Resultados: Não houve diferença estatística entre os grupos de moldeiras, tanto autoperfurante quanto aberta customizada. O grupo controle apresentou gaps de 73,31 ± 26,01 para I1; 149,16 ± 53,90 no I2; e 115,46 ± 73,34 para o I3. Ao passo que o Grupo Teste apresentou gaps de 154,41 ± 74,64 no I1; 159,45 ± 87,64 no I2; e 109,28 ± 49,18 para o I3. Conclusão: A moldeira autoperfurante pré-fabricada e a moldeira customizada apresentaram precisão similar na impressão de implantes da maxila edêntula.

show abstract

“…Another study was conducted to study the influence of implant position, tray type and impression material on the outcome of the accuracy of implant impressions by Gokcen Rohlig B et al in 2014. It was observed that between the polyvinyl siloxane medium body and polyether impression materials, there was no discrepancy between the materials and in the accuracy of the impression obtained (3) .…”

Section: Polyether Versus Vinyl Polysiloxanementioning

confidence: 88%

A Comparative Study of Conventional versus Digital Impression Taking in Implant Dentistry- A Systematic Review

Hussien¹,

Mallesh²

2019

jemds

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

A B S T R A C T BACKGROUNDDental implants are one of the most sought-after choice of treatment for restoration and rehabilitation of missing teeth. However, the accuracy of removable or fixed superstructures over the dental implants is influenced for a major proportion by the impression techniques and materials. This paper discusses the comparison of the accuracy of different conventional impression materials and techniques and the intra oral scanners, used in the second stage of the dental implant treatment. The objective of the paper is to compare the accuracy of impressions obtained using conventional impression and intra oral scanners, in the second stage of the dental implant treatment. METHODSIn order to perform the study, a PICO framework was formulated, and the topic of the paper was rephrased accordingly. The PICO framework for the topic of interest chosen is outlined. The keywords were thoroughly searched in scientific databases including the Cochrane Library of Databases, PubMed Central, Wiley Online Library and Google Scholar. The key terms used for the search were dental implants, impression materials, impression techniques, digital impression, intra oral scanners, accuracy and success. RESULTSAmong the different impression materials taken into the comparative study for the conventional impressions, it was observed that polyvinyl siloxane exhibited a dimensional accuracy slightly greater than polyether. However, light body putty exhibited greater accuracy than medium body putty. Various impression techniques were compared to evaluate the dimensional accuracy of the impression. It was observed that the open tray technique and splinted impression technique produced a more dimensionally stable impression than the other techniques. Among conventional and digital impressions, it was observed that intra oral scanners exhibited a greater degree of accuracy. CONCLUSIONSThis study is to comparatively assess the accuracy of conventional and digital impression of dental implants in the second stage of treatment. Although accuracy is greater in digital impressions since there is no likelihood of distortions or dimensional changes or any delay in pouring of models; however, incomplete capture of sub-gingival details, image obscured due to bleeding are possible with intra-oral scanners. Hence, between conventional and digital impressions, the dentist may gradually need to upgrade to the technology and advancements.

show abstract

Comparative Evaluation of the Effects of Implant Position, Impression Material, and Tray Type on Implant Impression Accuracy

Abstract: Polyether and PVS can safely be used for the impressions of the edentulous arches with multiple implants and different tray types produce similar accuracy results.

Cited by 9 publications

References 22 publications

The accuracy of different dental impression techniques for implant‐supported dental prostheses: A systematic review and meta‐analysis

The accuracy of different dental impression techniques for implant‐supported dental prostheses: A systematic review and meta‐analysis

Accuracy of self-perforating impression tray for maxillary dental implant

A Comparative Study of Conventional versus Digital Impression Taking in Implant Dentistry- A Systematic Review

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About