Accuracy of tooth‐implant impressions: Comparison of five different techniques

Purpose To compare the accuracy of five different tooth‐implant impression techniques. Materials and Methods In this in vitro, experimental study, an acrylic model containing one bone‐level Straumann dental implant at the site of maxillary first molar and an adjacent second premolar prepared for a p...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:Clinical and experimental dental research 2023-06, Vol.9 (3), p.526-534
Hauptverfasser: Fathi, Amirhossein, Rismanchian, Mansour, Yazdekhasti, Atousa, Salamati, Masih
Format: Artikel
Sprache:eng
Schlagworte:
Online-Zugang:Volltext
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
Beschreibung
Zusammenfassung:Purpose To compare the accuracy of five different tooth‐implant impression techniques. Materials and Methods In this in vitro, experimental study, an acrylic model containing one bone‐level Straumann dental implant at the site of maxillary first molar and an adjacent second premolar prepared for a porcelain fused to metal restoration was used. Impressions were made from the model using five different one‐step tooth‐implant impression techniques including scanning with an intraoral scanner, occlusal matrix, wax relief, closed‐tray, and open‐tray techniques. Each technique was repeated 15 times. The impressions were poured with dental stone, and the obtained casts were scanned by a laboratory scanner. The scan file of each technique was compared with the scan file of the original acrylic model by Geomagic Design X software. Data were analyzed by one‐way analysis of variance, and Tamhane's post‐hoc test (α = 0.05). Results For dental implant, intraoral scanning had the highest accuracy (0.1004 mm2) followed by open‐tray (0.1914 mm2), occlusal matrix (0.2101 mm2), closed‐tray (0.2422 mm2), and wax relief (0.2585 mm2) techniques (p 
ISSN:2057-4347
2057-4347
DOI:10.1002/cre2.737