Evaluation of Accuracy of Direct Transfer Snapon Impression Coping Closed Tray Impression Technique and Direct Transfer Open Tray Impression Technique: An In Vitro Study

Balamurugan, T; Manimaran, P

doi:10.1007/s13191-012-0141-x

Cited by 21 publications

(29 citation statements)

References 6 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The majority of studies of conventional implant impressions (55 studies) did not examine the vertical position of implants. The equigingival (BalaMurugan & Manimaran, ) or supragingival (Sabouhi et al., , ) placement of implants was stated, however, not evaluated for the impression accuracy. Implants were placed at depths of 0, 1 and 3 mm and examined along with other specifications for conventional implant impressions (Martínez‐Rus et al., ).…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

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

147

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%

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

147

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…A variety of potential measurement techniques which could have been used for the purpose of this study have been described in the literature including coordinate measurement machines [9], 3D image correlation procedures [22,25], and CT scanning [26]. As repeatedly described, a strain gauge equipped restoration fitting a reference model may also be used for assessing the accuracy of master casts [9,12,14,27,28].…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…As repeatedly described, a strain gauge equipped restoration fitting a reference model may also be used for assessing the accuracy of master casts [9,12,14,27,28]. Although it may be claimed that more sophisticated techniques provide data in all directions of space separately [11], the major advantage of the measurement method applied here seems to be that these deformations are integrated in one strain value [25].…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Journal of Dental Surgery For evaluating the accuracy of the master casts, the strain gauge on the measuring device was set to zero followed by positioning of the device on a specific master cast and tightening of the abutment screws to 25 N cm using the implant manufacturer's manual ratchet [9,13]. The final strain values after 2 min were recorded for analysis (Figure 4).…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Polyvinylsiloxane and polyether impression materials [8] and pick-up transfer components [9] seem to positively affect impression accuracy while splinting of the transfer components may not bear an advantage [8]. Severe implant angulation negatively affects multiunit implant impression accuracy [2].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Variables Affecting the Accuracy of Implant Master Casts: An In Vitro Pilot Study

Karl

Palarie

2014

Journal of Dental Surgery

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Impression and master cast accuracy have been identified as being the major determinants of superstructure fit in implantsupported restorations. The goal of this in vitro investigation was to determine the effects of different transfer components, impression materials, disinfection, storage time, and stone type on master cast accuracy. Following impression making from a reference model with two internal-hex bone-level implants and master cast fabrication (eight experimental groups; n = 5), a bar-type measurement device equipped with a strain gauge was fixed on all master casts while strain development was recorded. Statistical analysis was performed applying ANOVA and paired t-tests with the level of significance set at = 0.05. The transfer components with plastic sleeves caused maximum misfit strain which was significantly greater as compared to click (P = 0.02) and open tray transfer components (P = 0.00). No significant effect on master cast accuracy was recorded for the parameters impression material, impression disinfection, and storage of impressions or casts. Lower strain development was observed in casts poured in type 3 stone as compared to casts poured in type 4 stone (P = 0.01). For the bone-level implant system considered here, the great levels of accuracy could be achieved using pick-up impressions with either click or open tray impression components.

show abstract

Accuracy of tooth‐implant impressions: Comparison of five different techniques

Fathi

Rismanchian

Yazdekhasti

et al. 2023

Clinical & Exp Dental Res

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

To compare the accuracy of five different tooth-implant impression techniques. Materials and Methods: In this in vitro, experimental study, an acrylic model containing one bone-level Straumann dental implant at the site of maxillary first molar and an adjacent second premolar prepared for a porcelain fused to metal restoration was used. Impressions were made from the model using five different one-step tooth-implant impression techniques including scanning with an intraoral scanner, occlusal matrix, wax relief, closed-tray, and open-tray techniques. Each technique was repeated 15 times. The impressions were poured with dental stone, and the obtained casts were scanned by a laboratory scanner. The scan file of each technique was compared with the scan file of the original acrylic model by Geomagic Design X software. Data were analyzed by one-way analysis of variance, and Tamhane's post-hoc test (α = 0.05).Results: For dental implant, intraoral scanning had the highest accuracy (0.1004 mm 2 ) followed by open-tray (0.1914 mm 2 ), occlusal matrix (0.2101 mm 2 ), closed-tray (0.2422 mm 2 ), and wax relief (0.2585 mm 2 ) techniques (p < 0.05). For the prepared tooth, wax relief (0.0988 mm 2 ) had the highest accuracy followed by occlusal matrix (0.1211 mm 2 ), open-tray (0.1663 mm 2 ), closed-tray (0.1737 mm 2 ), and intraoral scanning (0.4903 mm 2 ) technique (p < 0.05). For both dental implant and prepared tooth, occlusal matrix (0.2431 mm 2 ) had the highest accuracy followed by open-tray (0.2574 mm 2 ), wax relief (0.2693 mm 2 ), closed-tray (0.2862 mm 2 ), and intraoral scanning (0.3192 mm 2 ) technique (p > 0.05). Conclusion:The compared simultaneous tooth-implant impression techniques had comparable accuracy with no significant difference.

show abstract

Evaluation of Accuracy of Direct Transfer Snapon Impression Coping Closed Tray Impression Technique and Direct Transfer Open Tray Impression Technique: An In Vitro Study

Cited by 21 publications

References 6 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

Variables Affecting the Accuracy of Implant Master Casts: An In Vitro Pilot Study

Accuracy of tooth‐implant impressions: Comparison of five different techniques

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About