Journals / European Oral Research / 2021 / Cilt: 55 - Sayı: 2

Dimensional accuracy of vinyl polyether and polyvinyl siloxane impression materials in direct implant impression technique for multiple dental implants

Pages
54–59
Publication Date
2021-06-28
DOI
—
🏛️Bibliographic metadata and full text access for this article are provided via DergiPark.
DergiPark Record ↗
✨

AI Summary & Key Takeaways

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(Too Long; Didn't Read)

Conclusion The casts fabricated from VPS or PVS impression materials provide similar dimensional accuracy regardless of the implant splinting method.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:Purpose The present study compared the dimensional accuracy of vinyl polyether silicone (VPES) and polyvinyl siloxane (PVS) impression materials used for non-splinted (NS) and splinted (S) direct open-tray impression techniques for multiple implants inserted in simulated edentulous mandibles.
📊
Key Findings & Data:Results The differences in the distortion values between the VPES and PVS impression materials were not statistically significant.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:Conclusion The casts fabricated from VPS or PVS impression materials provide similar dimensional accuracy regardless of the implant splinting method.
🔬Design:Modeling & Simulation
📍Scope:Comprehensive Sample
⚙️Variables:Dental implants · Direct impressions · Polyvinyl siloxane

Abstract

Purpose The present study compared the dimensional accuracy of vinyl polyether silicone (VPES) and polyvinyl siloxane (PVS) impression materials used for non-splinted (NS) and splinted (S) direct open-tray impression techniques for multiple implants inserted in simulated edentulous mandibles. Materials and Methods A mandibular stainless steel model with eight internal connections for implant analogs was fabricated to simulate a clinical scenario. The acrylic resin splinted and non-splinted direct impressions were obtained for both VPES and PVS materials. Seventy-two cast samples were divided into four groups based on the impression techniques and materials used. The dimensional accuracies of the casts were measured in three different axes using a computerized coordinate measuring machine (CMM), and were statistically compared. Results The differences in the distortion values between the VPES and PVS impression materials were not statistically significant. Similarly, the differences between the splinted and non-splinted groups among the VPES and PVS materials were not statistically significant. Conclusion The casts fabricated from VPS or PVS impression materials provide similar dimensional accuracy regardless of the implant splinting method.

🔖

Cite This Article

RAJENDRAN, R., CHANDER, N. G., ANİTHA, K. V., MUTHUKUMAR, B. (2021). Dimensional accuracy of vinyl polyether and polyvinyl siloxane impression materials in direct implant impression technique for multiple dental implants. European Oral Research, Cilt: 55 - Sayı: 2, 54–59. https://ajindex.com/articles/265803

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (12)

  1. Buser D, Janner SF, Wittneben JG, Bragger U, Ramseier CA, Salvi GE. 10-year survival and success rates of 511 titanium implants with a sandblasted and acid-etched surface: a retrospective study in 303 partially edentulous patients. Clin Implant Dent Relat Res 2012
  2. [CrossRef] google scholar 2. Ravald N, Dahlgren S, Teiwik A, Gröndahl K. Long-term evaluation of Astra Tech and Brânemark implants in patients treated with full-arch bridges. Results after 12-15 years. Clin Oral Implants Res 2013
  3. [CrossRef] google scholar 3. Arora A, Upadhyaya V, Parashar KR, Malik D. Evaluation of the effect of implant angulations and impression techniques on implant cast accuracy - An in vitro study. J Indian Prosthodont Soc 2019
  4. [CrossRef] google scholar 4. Bhakta S, Vere J, Calder I, Patel R. Impressions in implant dentistry. Br Dent J 2011
  5. [CrossRef] google scholar 5. Yokoyama S, Wakabayashi N, Shiota M, Ohyama T. Stress analysis in edentulous mandibular bone supporting implant-retained 1-piece or multiple superstructures. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 2005
  6. google scholar 6. Balamurugan T, Manimaran P. Evaluation of accuracy of direct transfer snapon impression coping closed tray impression technique and direct transfer open tray impression technique: an in vitro study. J Indian Prosthodont Soc 2013
  7. [CrossRef] google scholar 7. Al Quran FA, Rashdan BA, Zomar AA, Weiner S. Passive fit and accuracy of three dental implant impression techniques. Quintessence Int 2012
  8. google scholar 8. Abduo J, Bennani V, Waddell N, Lyons K, Swain M. Assessing the fit of implant fixed prostheses: a critical review. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 2010
  9. google scholar 9. Ender A, Mehl A. Accuracy of complete-arch dental impressions: a new method of measuring trueness and precision. J Prosthet Dent 2013
  10. [CrossRef] google scholar 10. Al-Abdullah K, Zandparsa R, Finkelman M, Hirayama H. An in vitro comparison of the accuracy of implant impressions with coded healing abutments and different implant angulations. J Prosthet Dent 2013
  11. [CrossRef] google scholar 11. Baig MR, Buzayan MM, Yunus N. Accuracy of a new elastomeric impression material for complete-arch dental implant impressions. J Investig Clin Dent 2018
  12. e12320. [CrossRef] google scholar 12. Siadat H, Saeidi Z, Alikhasi M, Zeighami S. Comparative evaluation of the effect of impression materials and trays on the accuracy of angula