Comparison between open and closed-tray impression techniques on the implant transfer accuracy
Objective: This in vitro study aimed to determine and compare the dimensional accuracy of open and closed-tray impression techniques for implant-supported prosthesis. Material and Methods: On a edentulous master model, four external hexagonal implants were parallelly installed and associated with f...
Saved in:
| Main Authors: | , , , , |
|---|---|
| Format: | Article |
| Language: | English |
| Published: |
Universidade Estadual Paulista
2018-08-01
|
| Series: | Brazilian Dental Science |
| Online Access: | https://ojs.ict.unesp.br/index.php/cob/article/view/1568 |
| Tags: |
Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
|
| _version_ | 1849228598870802432 |
|---|---|
| author | Karen Petená Moretti Rafael Antônio De Castro Patricia Aparecida Ana Renata Pilli Jóias Renato Morales Jóias |
| author_facet | Karen Petená Moretti Rafael Antônio De Castro Patricia Aparecida Ana Renata Pilli Jóias Renato Morales Jóias |
| author_sort | Karen Petená Moretti |
| collection | DOAJ |
| description |
Objective: This in vitro study aimed to determine and compare the dimensional accuracy of open and closed-tray impression techniques for implant-supported prosthesis. Material and Methods: On a edentulous master model, four external hexagonal implants were parallelly installed and associated with four multi unit coping transfers and four multi unit rotational caps. A master superstructure was constructed and splinted all implants (control group). Five customized trays were constructed to perform ten open (n=5) and closed-tray (n=5) impressions. The obtained models were submitted to the dimensional analysis on three points in the center of the labial face of each implant (A, B, C, and D) with the aid of Stereoscopic Magnifying Glass with x60 magnification. The vertical misfit between the metallic structure and the implant analogues was measured on each point. The obtained results were submitted to Dixon’s normality test and Kruskal-Wallis test for independent samples (p < 0,05) with the aid of Bioestat 5.0 software. Results: The means and standard deviation were: open tray technique – 24.6474 ± 14.8883 µm; closed-tray technique – 26.2257 ± 9.7421 µm; and control group 22.445 ± 7.7106 µm. Conclusion: The accuracy of open and closed-tray impression techniques showed no statistically significant differences and both techniques were effective for implant transfer.
|
| format | Article |
| id | doaj-art-9737ca58de36456aaadc7e1c99c753da |
| institution | Kabale University |
| issn | 2178-6011 |
| language | English |
| publishDate | 2018-08-01 |
| publisher | Universidade Estadual Paulista |
| record_format | Article |
| series | Brazilian Dental Science |
| spelling | doaj-art-9737ca58de36456aaadc7e1c99c753da2025-08-22T19:02:21ZengUniversidade Estadual PaulistaBrazilian Dental Science2178-60112018-08-0121310.14295/bds.2018.v21i3.1568Comparison between open and closed-tray impression techniques on the implant transfer accuracyKaren Petená Moretti0Rafael Antônio De Castro1Patricia Aparecida Ana2Renata Pilli Jóias3Renato Morales Jóias4Methodist University of São Paulo – School of Dentistry – Department of Orthodontics - Sao Paulo SP – Brazil.Methodist University of São Paulo – School of Dentistry – Department of Orthodontics - Sao Paulo SP – Brazil.Federal University of ABC – Center of Engineering, Modeling, and Apllied Social Sciences - Sao Bernardo do Campo – SP – Brazil.Methodist University of São Paulo – School of Dentistry – Department of Orthodontics - Sao Paulo SP – Brazil.Methodist University of São Paulo – School of Dentistry – Department of Prosthodontics - SP - Brazil. Objective: This in vitro study aimed to determine and compare the dimensional accuracy of open and closed-tray impression techniques for implant-supported prosthesis. Material and Methods: On a edentulous master model, four external hexagonal implants were parallelly installed and associated with four multi unit coping transfers and four multi unit rotational caps. A master superstructure was constructed and splinted all implants (control group). Five customized trays were constructed to perform ten open (n=5) and closed-tray (n=5) impressions. The obtained models were submitted to the dimensional analysis on three points in the center of the labial face of each implant (A, B, C, and D) with the aid of Stereoscopic Magnifying Glass with x60 magnification. The vertical misfit between the metallic structure and the implant analogues was measured on each point. The obtained results were submitted to Dixon’s normality test and Kruskal-Wallis test for independent samples (p < 0,05) with the aid of Bioestat 5.0 software. Results: The means and standard deviation were: open tray technique – 24.6474 ± 14.8883 µm; closed-tray technique – 26.2257 ± 9.7421 µm; and control group 22.445 ± 7.7106 µm. Conclusion: The accuracy of open and closed-tray impression techniques showed no statistically significant differences and both techniques were effective for implant transfer. https://ojs.ict.unesp.br/index.php/cob/article/view/1568 |
| spellingShingle | Karen Petená Moretti Rafael Antônio De Castro Patricia Aparecida Ana Renata Pilli Jóias Renato Morales Jóias Comparison between open and closed-tray impression techniques on the implant transfer accuracy Brazilian Dental Science |
| title | Comparison between open and closed-tray impression techniques on the implant transfer accuracy |
| title_full | Comparison between open and closed-tray impression techniques on the implant transfer accuracy |
| title_fullStr | Comparison between open and closed-tray impression techniques on the implant transfer accuracy |
| title_full_unstemmed | Comparison between open and closed-tray impression techniques on the implant transfer accuracy |
| title_short | Comparison between open and closed-tray impression techniques on the implant transfer accuracy |
| title_sort | comparison between open and closed tray impression techniques on the implant transfer accuracy |
| url | https://ojs.ict.unesp.br/index.php/cob/article/view/1568 |
| work_keys_str_mv | AT karenpetenamoretti comparisonbetweenopenandclosedtrayimpressiontechniquesontheimplanttransferaccuracy AT rafaelantoniodecastro comparisonbetweenopenandclosedtrayimpressiontechniquesontheimplanttransferaccuracy AT patriciaaparecidaana comparisonbetweenopenandclosedtrayimpressiontechniquesontheimplanttransferaccuracy AT renatapillijoias comparisonbetweenopenandclosedtrayimpressiontechniquesontheimplanttransferaccuracy AT renatomoralesjoias comparisonbetweenopenandclosedtrayimpressiontechniquesontheimplanttransferaccuracy |