Comparison of the accuracy of plastic and metal stock trays for implant impressions

Purpose: This in vitro study evaluated the dimensional accuracy of two impression techniques (tapered and splinted) with two stock trays (plastic and metal) for implant-supported prostheses. Materials and Methods: A master cast with four parallel abutment analogs and a passive framework were fabrica...

ver descrição completa

Detalhes bibliográficos
Autores: Del’Acqua, Marcelo Antonialli, De Avila, Érica Dorigatti [UNESP], Amaral, Ângela Líbia Chagas [UNESP], Pinelli, Lígia Antunes Pereira [UNESP], Mollo, Francisco De Assis [UNESP]
Formato: artículo
Estado:Versión publicada
Fecha de publicación:2012
País:Brasil
Recursos:Universidade Estadual Paulista (UNESP)
Repositorio:Repositório Institucional da UNESP
Idioma:inglés
OAI Identifier:oai:repositorio.unesp.br:11449/227080
Acesso em linha:http://hdl.handle.net/11449/227080
Access Level:acceso abierto
Palavra-chave:Closed tray
Implant impression accuracy
Open tray
Splinted squared impression coping
Stock tray
Tapered impression coping
Descrição
Resumo:Purpose: This in vitro study evaluated the dimensional accuracy of two impression techniques (tapered and splinted) with two stock trays (plastic and metal) for implant-supported prostheses. Materials and Methods: A master cast with four parallel abutment analogs and a passive framework were fabricated. Polyvinyl siloxane impression material was used for all impressions with two metal stock trays and two plastic stock trays (closed and open trays). Four groups (tapered plastic, splinted plastic, tapered metal, and splinted metal) and a control group (master cast) were tested (n = 5 for each group). After the framework was seated on each of the casts, one abutment screw was tightened, and the marginal gap between the abutment and framework on the other side was measured with a stereomicroscope. The measurements were analyzed with the Kruskal-Wallis one-way analysis of variance on ranks test followed by the Dunn method. Results: The mean values (± standard deviations) for the abutment/framework interface gaps were: master cast, 32 ± 2 µm; tapered metal, 44 ± 10 µm; splinted metal, 69 ± 28 µm; tapered plastic, 164 ± 58 µm; splinted plastic, 128 ± 47 µm. No significant difference was detected between the master cast, tapered metal, and splinted metal groups or between the tapered and splinted plastic groups. Conclusions: In this study, the rigidity of the metal stock tray ensured better results than the plastic stock tray for implant impressions with a high-viscosity impression material (putty). Statistically similar results were obtained using tapered impression copings and splinted squared impression copings. The tapered impression copings technique and splinted squared impression copings technique with a metal stock tray produced precise casts with no statistically significant difference in interface gaps compared to the master cast. © 2012 by Quintessence Publishing Co Inc.