Statement of problem: Which impression material, impression tray type, and implant impression technique combination produces the most accurate complete-arch impression is unclear. Purpose: The purpose of this in vitro study was to compare the implant impression accuracy of a completely edentulous arch made with addition silicone occlusal registration material and an open tray with the implant impression accuracy of other conventional impression techniques. Material and methods: A master cast was fabricated from Type IV gypsum with four 3.8-mm diameter implants with internal hexagon located in the area of mandibular canines and first molars. Impressions (N=60) were made from the master cast using the 6 techniques investigated: group B-OC-N with occlusal registration impression material (B), open custom tray (OC), and nonsplinted impression pins (N); group B-OS-N with occlusal registration impression material (B), open plastic perforated stock tray (OS), and nonsplinted impression pins (N); group PE-OC-N with polyether medium-body impression material (PE), open custom tray (OC), and nonsplinted impression pins (N); group PE-OC-S with polyether medium-body impression material (PE), open custom tray (OC), and impression pins splinted (S) with autopolymerizing resin cut after 17 minutes and reconnected; group PE-CC-N with polyether medium-body impression material (PE), closed custom tray (CC), and nonsplinted impression pins (N); group PVS-CS-N with simultaneous double-mix polyvinyl siloxane impression material (PVS), closed stock perforated metal tray (CS), and nonsplinted impression pins (N). Type IV gypsum casts were fabricated 24 hours after making the impressions. A computerized numerical control 3D coordinate measuring machine was used to measure the absolute differences of the distances between the centroids of the 4 implants among the casts produced and the distances measured at the master cast. The Kruskal-Wallis test was used to determine differences among the experimental groups (α=.05). The Mann-Whitney U post hoc analysis was used for all group combinations. Results: No significant differences were found between the test groups B-OC-N and PE-OC-S, which were more accurate than the other groups. Group B-OS-N resulted in the least accurate impressions of all experimental groups. Group PE-OC-S resulted in more accurate impressions than the PE-OC-N group. No statistically significant differences were found between groups PE-OC-N and PE-CC-N or between groups PVS-CS-N and PE-CC-N. Conclusions: For complete edentulism, the use of silicone occlusal registration material with an open custom tray and nonsplinted impression pins resulted in impressions as accurate as those produced with PE open custom tray with splinted impression pins. These 2 techniques resulted in more accurate impressions than the other 4 techniques studied.
Bibliographical noteFunding Information:
This work was supported in part by a grant from the Section of Operative Dentistry, School of Dentistry, National and Kapodistrian University of Athens and a DENTSPLY Implants Investigator-Initiated Study Grant.
© 2019 Editorial Council for the Journal of Prosthetic Dentistry
Copyright 2019 Elsevier B.V., All rights reserved.