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
 · 
192 Views
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: PurposeTo compare the accuracy of digital and conventional impression techniques for completely edentulous patients and to determine the effect of different variables on the accuracy outcomes.Materials and methodsA stone cast of an edentulous mandible with five implants was fabricated to serve as master cast (control) for both implant- and abutment-level impressions. Digital impressions (n = 10) were taken with an intraoral optical scanner (TRIOS, 3shape, Denmark) after connecting polymer scan bodies. For the conventional polyether impressions of the master cast, a splinted and a non-splinted technique were used for implant-level and abutment-level impressions (4 cast groups, n = 10 each). Master casts and conventional impression casts were digitized with an extraoral high-resolution scanner (IScan D103i, Imetric, Courgenay, Switzerland) to obtain digital volumes. Standard tessellation language (STL) datasets from the five groups of digital and conventional impressions were superimposed with the STL dataset from the master cast to assess the 3D (global) deviations. To compare the master cast with digital and conventional impressions at the implant level, analysis of variance (ANOVA) and Scheffe's post hoc test was used, while Wilcoxon's rank-sum test was used for testing the difference between abutment-level conventional impressions.ResultsSignificant 3D deviations (P < 0.001) were found between Group II (non-splinted, implant level) and control. No significant differences were found between Groups I (splinted, implant level), III (digital, implant level), IV (splinted, abutment level), and V (non-splinted, abutment level) compared with the control. Implant angulation up to 15° did not affect the 3D accuracy of implant impressions (P > 0.001).Conclusion Digital implant impressions are as accurate as conventional implant impressions. The splinted, implant-level impression technique is more accurate than the non-splinted one for completely edentulous patients, whereas there was no difference in the accuracy at the abutment level. The implant angulation up to 15° did not affect the accuracy of implant impressions.
    Clinical Oral Implants Research 02/2015; DOI:10.1111/clr.12567 · 3.12 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Purpose: To compare the accuracy of digital and conventional impression techniques for partially and completely edentulous patients and to determine the effect of different variables on the accuracy outcomes. Materials and Methods: An electronic and manual search was conducted to identify studies reporting on the accuracy of implant impressions. Pooled data were descriptively analyzed. Factors affecting the accuracy were identified, and their impact on accuracy outcomes was assessed. Results: The 76 studies that fulfilled the inclusion criteria featured 4 clinical studies and 72 in vitro studies. Studies were grouped according to edentulism; 41 reported on completely edentulous and 35 on partially edentulous patients. For completely edentulous patients, most in vitro studies and all three clinical studies demonstrated better accuracy with the splinted vs the nonsplinted technique (15 studies, splint; 1, nonsplint; 9, no difference). One clinical study and half of the in vitro studies reported better accuracy with the open-tray vs the closed-tray technique (10 studies, open-tray; 1, closed-tray; 10, no difference). For partially edentulous patients, one clinical study and most in vitro studies showed better accuracy with the splinted vs the nonsplinted technique (8 studies, splint; 2, nonsplint; 3, no difference). The majority of in vitro studies showed better accuracy with the open-tray vs the closed-tray technique (10 studies, open-tray; 1, closed-tray; 7, no difference), but the only clinical study reported no difference. Conclusion: The splinted impression technique is more accurate for both partially and completely edentulous patients. The open-tray technique is more accurate than the closed-tray for completely edentulous patients, but for partially edentulous patients there seems to be no difference. The impression material (polyether or polyvinylsiloxane) has no effect on the accuracy. The implant angulation affects the accuracy of implant impressions, while there are insufficient studies for the effect of implant connection type. Further accuracy studies are needed regarding digital implant impressions.
    The International journal of oral & maxillofacial implants 07/2014; 29(4):836-845. DOI:10.11607/jomi.3625 · 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