Article

Effect of splinted and nonsplinted impression techniques on the accuracy of fit of fixed implant prostheses in edentulous patients: a comparative study

Department of Restorative Dentistry and Biomaterials Sciences, Harvard School of Dental Medicine, Boston, Massachusetts 02115, USA.
The International journal of oral & maxillofacial implants (Impact Factor: 1.49). 11/2011; 26(6):1267-72.
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT The effect of different implant impression techniques on the accuracy of casts has been investigated mostly in vitro, and clinically relevant evidence is scarce. The purpose of this study was to investigate the effect of implant impression techniques--specifically, splinted versus nonsplinted--on the accuracy of fit of fixed implant prostheses in edentulous patients.
This clinical study included 12 edentulous patients (13 edentulous arches). All patients had undergone computer-guided, prosthetically driven implant surgery. Splinted (with acrylic resin) and nonsplinted pickup implant impression techniques were used to generate two different casts. Intraoral verification jigs were made to fabricate a third index cast (prosthesis fabrication cast); these made up a control group. All patients were definitively rehabilitated with one-piece zirconia prostheses. The accuracy of fit of each prosthesis was evaluated indirectly by examining them clinically and radiographically while they were fit on the generated casts.
Of the 13 splinted casts, 12 presented with accurate clinical fit when the zirconia prosthesis was seated on its respective cast. Only 6 of the 13 nonsplinted casts showed accurate clinical fit. The zirconia prostheses fit accurately on all respective casts of the control group (prosthesis fabrication cast) as well as intraorally. The differences between the test groups and between the nonsplinted and control groups were statistically significant. No statistically significant differences were found between the splinted and control groups.
There is clinical evidence that the splinted impression technique generates more accurate implant impressions and master casts than the nonsplinted technique for complete-arch, one-piece fixed prostheses.

Download full-text

Full-text

Available from: Panos Papaspyridakos, Aug 28, 2014
5 Followers
 · 
199 Views
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Purpose: This in vitro study evaluated the accuracy of multiple-unit dental implant casts obtained from splinted or nonsplinted direct impression techniques using various splinting materials by comparing the casts to the reference models. The effect of two different impression materials on the accuracy of the implant casts was also evaluated for abutment-level impressions. Materials and Methods: A reference model with six internal-connection implant replicas placed in the completely edentulous mandibular arch and connected to multi-base abutments was fabricated from heat-curing acrylic resin. Forty impressions of the reference model were made, 20 each with polyether (PE) and polyvinylsiloxane (PVS) impression materials using the open tray technique. The PE and PVS groups were further subdivided into four subgroups of five each on the bases of splinting type: no splinting, bite registration PE, bite registration addition silicone, or autopolymerizing acrylic resin. The positional accuracy of the implant replica heads was measured on the poured casts using a coordinate measuring machine to assess linear differences in interimplant distances in all three axes. The collected data (linear and three-dimensional [3D] displacement values) were compared with the measurements calculated on the reference resin model and analyzed with nonparametric tests (Kruskal-Wallis and Mann-Whitney). Results: No significant differences were found between the various splinting groups for both PE and PVS impression materials in terms of linear and 3D distortions. However, small but significant differences were found between the two impression materials (PVS, 91 μm; PE, 103 μm) in terms of 3D discrepancies, irrespective of the splinting technique employed. Conclusions: Casts obtained from both impression materials exhibited differences from the reference model. The impression material influenced impression inaccuracy more than the splinting material for multiple-unit abutment-level impressions.
    The International journal of oral & maxillofacial implants 28(6):1512-20. · 1.49 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Purpose: To compare two different impression techniques for implants in totally edentulous patients. Materials and methods: A total of 38 patients had impressions taken both using plaster and splinted vinyl polysiloxane (splinted-VPS). Two casts per patient were generated and allocated as test (plaster) and control (splinted-VPS) cast groups according to a randomised cross-over design. One of the two casts from each patient was randomly selected as master cast according to a parallelgroup design and used to fabricate the definitive prosthesis. Outcome measures were implant and prosthetic success rates, complications, marginal bone level (MBL) changes, patient satisfaction, chair time required to take the impressions, inter-implant discrepancy between the casts, sulcus bleeding index (SBI) and plaque score (PS). Results: In total, 76 impressions were taken in 38 patients. Two plaster impressions failed. Furthermore, 38 computer-aided design/computer-assisted manufacturing screw-retained complete-arch prostheses were fabricated onto the master cast (18 from plaster and 20 from splinted-VPS impressions) and the patients were followed up for 3 years after loading. No drop-out occurred and no implants or prostheses failed, accounting for a cumulative implant and prosthesis survival rate of 100% over the 3-year post-loading period. Plaster impressions yielded significantly greater patient satisfaction and shorter chair time. The discrepancy between the casts was 0.055 ± 0.067 mm (P = 0.931). Mixed model analysis revealed a significant main effect from both the implant number and the inter-implant distance, while no difference was found with regard to implant angulation. Five chip-off fractures of the porcelain veneer occurred in 5 of the 38 patients (3 in restorations fabricated onto the plaster cast group and 2 in the splinted-VPS cast group) with no effect from the type of impression on the prosthetic success rate (P = 0.331). However, all of the patients were functionally and aesthetically satisfied with their prostheses. Furthermore, mean MBL, SBI and PS showed no significant differences (P > 0.05) between the groups. Conclusions: The clinical outcome of plaster impressions for completely edentulous patients was found to be the same as that for splinted-VPS impressions. The intraoral pre-scan resin framework try-in can be avoided. Plaster impressions may be less time consuming and thus more comfortable for the patient, but sometimes may have to be repeated due to fractures. Conflict-of-interest statement: All materials used in this study were purchased by the authors and there were no commercial or institutional interests.
    European Journal of Oral Implantology 01/2013; 6(4):325-40. · 2.02 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Background The treatment of mandibular edentulism with implant fixed complete dental prostheses (IFCDPs) is a routinely used treatment option. PurposeThe study aims to report the implant and prosthodontic survival rates associated with IFCDPs for the edentulous mandible after an observation period of a minimum 5 years. Materials and Methods An electronic MEDLINE/PubMED search was conducted to identify randomized controlled clinical trials and prospective studies with IFCDPs for the edentulous mandible. Clinical studies with at least 5-year follow-up were selected. Pooled data were statistically analyzed and cumulative implant- and prosthesis survival rates were calculated by meta-analysis, regression, and chi-square statistics. Implant-related and prosthesis-related factors were identified and their impact on survival rates was assessed. ResultsSeventeen prospective studies, including 501 patients and 2,827 implants, were selected for meta-analysis. The majority of the implants (88.5% of all placed implants) had been placed in the interforaminal area. Cumulative implant survival rates for rough surface ranged from 98.42% (95% confidence interval [CI]: 97.98-98.86) (5 years) to 96.86% (95% CI: 96.00-97.73) (10 years); smooth surface implant survival rates ranged from 98.93% (95% CI: 98.38-99.49) (5 years) to 97.88% (95% CI: 96.78-98.98) (10 years). The prosthodontic survival rates for 1-piece IFCDPs ranged from 98.61% (95% CI: 97.80-99.43) (5 years) to 97.25% (95% CI: 95.66-98.86) (10 years). Conclusion Treatment with mandibular IFCDPs yields high implant and prosthodontic survival rates (more than 96% after 10 years). Rough surface implants exhibited cumulative survival rates similar to the smooth surface ones (p>.05) in the edentulous mandible. The number of supporting implants and the antero-posterior implant distribution had no influence (p>.05) on the implant survival rate. The prosthetic design and veneering material, the retention type, and the loading protocol (delayed, early, and immediate) had no influence (p>.05) on the prosthodontic survival rates.
    Clinical Implant Dentistry and Related Research 01/2013; 16(5). DOI:10.1111/cid.12036 · 2.80 Impact Factor
Show more