Materials and methods : A prospective clinical study on implant impression accuracy [2]
There should be accurate imprints of the implant areas.
There should be no voids in the occlusal, buccal, lingual, and interproximal surfaces of the neighboring teeth.
There should be a proper reproduction of the implant area.
There should be no impression material in the analog-impression coping interfaces.
The impression material should not be separated from the custom tray.
The transfer copings should not be displaced from the impression.
Any impression not meeting these criteria was repeated until the criteria were met. Two impressions were made for every patient by the same clinician, one using the open and a second with the closed tray technique.
For the analysis of accuracy in the vertical direction or marginal discrepancy, verification jigs were constructed to connect the two impression copings [15]. These verification jigs were used to transfer the relationships between the two impression copings and their implants from the patients’ mouths to the master casts. To construct the verification jig, the two impression copings would be attached to their implant, inside the patient mouth, and a string of dental floss is wrapped around to connect the two impression copings (Fig. 2). A light cure acrylic resin (Al dente dental products GmbH, Germany) adapted over the dental floss in increments and cured according to the manufacturer’s instructions. The impression coping’s screws would then be loosened, and the jig removed [16].
The impression copings for both the open and closed tray techniques were re-assembled and fixed into their corresponding implant analogs. Dental Stone Type IV (Elite Rock, Zhermack) was mixed using a vacuum machine for 30 s, then poured using the boxing technique over a vibrator, and the casts separated after 45 min according to the manufacturer’s instruction [17, 18]. The master casts were then sectioned to a base of 20 mm, to allow their allocation under the stereomicroscope (AmScop14370, Myford Road, #150, Irvine, CA 92606 USA), to be examined at a × 50 magnification, and to evaluate the presence or absence of marginal discrepancy [8, 19].
Serial posts:
- Introduction : A prospective clinical study on implant impression accuracy
- Materials and methods : A prospective clinical study on implant impression accuracy [1]
- Materials and methods : A prospective clinical study on implant impression accuracy [2]
- Materials and methods : A prospective clinical study on implant impression accuracy [3]
- Results : A prospective clinical study on implant impression accuracy
- Discussion : A prospective clinical study on implant impression accuracy [1]
- Discussion : A prospective clinical study on implant impression accuracy [2]
- Discussion : A prospective clinical study on implant impression accuracy [3]
- Conclusion : A prospective clinical study on implant impression accuracy
- Availability of data and materials : A prospective clinical study on implant impression accuracy
- References : A prospective clinical study on implant impression accuracy [1]
- References : A prospective clinical study on implant impression accuracy [2]
- References : A prospective clinical study on implant impression accuracy [3]
- Acknowledgements : A prospective clinical study on implant impression accuracy
- Funding : A prospective clinical study on implant impression accuracy
- Author information : A prospective clinical study on implant impression accuracy
- Ethics declarations : A prospective clinical study on implant impression accuracy
- Additional information : A prospective clinical study on implant impression accuracy
- Rights and permissions : A prospective clinical study on implant impression accuracy
- About this article : A prospective clinical study on implant impression accuracy
- Table 1 The t test for horizontal measurements of the intraoral and master cast in the open and closed tray techniques : A prospective clinical study on implant impression accuracy
- Table 2 Open and closed tray techniques accuracy using the Wilcoxon signed-rank test : A prospective clinical study on implant impression accuracy
- Table 3 Open and closed tray technique accuracy in the maxilla and mandible, using the Mann-Whitney U test : A prospective clinical study on implant impression accuracy
- Table 4 Impression technique accuracy in the anterior and posterior regions using the Mann-Whitney U test : A prospective clinical study on implant impression accuracy
- Table 5 The horizontal discrepancies according to implant position in the arch, using the Mann-Whitney U test : A prospective clinical study on implant impression accuracy
- Table 6 Chi-square test of marginal discrepancies for the impression techniques, by implant position in the arch : A prospective clinical study on implant impression accuracy
- Fig. 1. Horizontal measurements between the two impression copings in the patient’s mouth : A prospective clinical study on implant
- Fig. 2. Light cure acrylic resin verification jig in the patient’s mouth : A prospective clinical study on implant
- Fig. 3. Sample distribution according to arch and position : A prospective clinical study on implant
- Fig. 4. Normality line of the distribution horizontal measurement data for the intraoral and working casts : A prospective clinical study on implant
- Fig. 5. Marginal discrepancy distribution in the open and closed techniques, maxillary mandibular, and anterior and posterior regions : A prospective clinical study on implant