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

Abstract

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.

A comparative analysis of the accuracy of implant master casts fabricated from two different transfer impression techniques

“…This accords to the evidence of the study by Baig and Karl. [ 10 21 ] It is supported by various studies. [ 5 10 15 22 23 24 25 ]…”

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

“…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., , ; ...…”

“…Splinting of impression copings was studied and compared with nonsplinting of impression copings in numerous studies. Thirty‐two studies used nonsplinted impression copings (Akalin et al., ; Aldosari, ; Aldosari et al., ; Alikhasi et al., ; Alikhasi, Siadat, Beyabanaki et al., ; Alikhasi, Siadat, & Rahimian, ; BalaMurugan & Manimaran, ; Calesini et al., ; Ebadian et al., ; Ehsani et al., ; Eliasson & Ortorp, ; Geramipanah et al., ; Ghahremanloo et al., ; Gökçen‐Rohlig et al., ; Haghi et al., ; Howell et al., ; Ibrahim et al., ; Karl & Palarie, ; Karl et al., ; Lee et al., ; Lin et al., ; Marotti et al., ; Mpikos et al., ; Nakhaei et al., ; Ng et al., ; Rashidan et al., ; Reddy et al., ; Sabouhi et al., ; Shim et al., ; Siadat et al., ; Vojdani et al., ; Wegner et al., ), whereas seven studies used splinted impression copings for open tray impressions (Amin et al., ; Bergin et al., ; Di Fiore et al., ; Gupta et al., ; Ono et al., ; Rutkunas et al., ; Selvaraj et al., ) and one study splinted conical transfer copings for closed tray impressions. Twenty‐five studies compared splinted and nonsplinted impression techniques (Al‐Abdullah et al., ; de Avila et al., , ; Beyabanaki et al., ; Buzayan et al., ; Chang et al., ; Del'acqua et al., ; Ghanem et al., ; Hazboun, ; Heidari et al., ; Ibrahim & Ghuneim, ; Kurtulmus‐Yilmaz et al., ; Martínez‐Rus et al., ; Ongül et al., ; Papaspyridakos et al., ; Pera et al., ; Perez‐Davidi et al., ; Pujari et al.,…”

“…The accuracy of implant‐supported frameworks produced on master models and fitted on test models was assessed using different measurement protocols. Authors used strain gauges to measure the strain in a framework after the placement on implant abutments (BalaMurugan & Manimaran, ; Karl & Palarie, ; Karl et al., ; Zen et al., ). Marginal discrepancy between abutment and framework was measured using microscopes (Abdel‐Azim et al., ; de Avila et al., , ; Del'acqua et al., ; Marotti et al., ; Zen et al., ), optical comparators (Al‐Abdullah et al., ; Pujari et al., ; Reddy et al., ), a surface profilometer (Fernandez et al., ), an electron microscope (Katsoulis et al., ) or standardized photographs (Ono et al., ).…”

Assessment of accuracy of open tray and closed tray dental implant impression techniques: A comparative study

“…As the accuracy of an impression affects the accuracy of the cast, a precise impression is needed in order to create prosthesis with optimal fitting. A misfit in the prosthesis influences the pattern and magnitude of stress distribution in the prosthesis itself as well as the components of the implant and surrounding bone that may lead to unfavorable complications [1][2][3] . An implant impression is primarily a three-dimensional record of the implant and the surrounding tissues.…”