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.

5 Followers
 · 
191 Views
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: The transition of patients from failing dentition to complete-arch implant rehabilitation often means that the patient is rendered edentulous and has to wear a removable complete denture for a time. Many patients find this objectionable. A staged treatment approach provides a fixed interim prosthesis for use throughout the rehabilitation process, allowing patient comfort and prosthodontic control. This clinical report describes a staged approach protocol with a new type of interim prosthesis. The prosthesis is supported by hopeless teeth and the soft tissues of the maxillary tuberosities and mandibular retromolar pads for the complete-arch implant rehabilitation of a patient with failing dentition. This protocol allows for a fixed interim prosthesis with combined tooth and mucosa or implant support during the entire rehabilitation process, thus avoiding the use of complete dentures. The implants and prostheses were functioning successfully after 3 years of clinical service.
    The Journal of prosthetic dentistry 03/2014; DOI:10.1016/j.prosdent.2014.01.003 · 1.42 Impact Factor
  • [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

Full-text

Download
184 Downloads
Available from
Aug 28, 2014
Available from