Advanced search
Start date
Betweenand
Related content
(Reference retrieved automatically from Web of Science through information on FAPESP grant and its corresponding number as mentioned in the publication by the authors.)

Effect of Splinting in Accuracy of Two Implant Impression Techniques

Full text
Author(s):
de Avila, Erica Dorigatti [1] ; Moraes, Fernanda de Matos [1] ; Castanharo, Sabrina Maria [1] ; Del'Acqua, Marcelo Antonialli [2] ; Mollo, Jr., Francisco de Assis [1]
Total Authors: 5
Affiliation:
[1] Univ Estadual Paulista, UNESP, Araraquara Dent Sch, Dept Dent Mat & Prosthodont, Araraquara, SP - Brazil
[2] Araraquara Univ Ctr UNIARA, Sao Paulo - Brazil
Total Affiliations: 2
Document type: Journal article
Source: JOURNAL OF ORAL IMPLANTOLOGY; v. 40, n. 6, p. 633-639, DEC 2014.
Web of Science Citations: 3
Abstract

Because there is no consensus in the literature about the need for a splint between copings, the aim of this study was to evaluate, in vitro, the accuracy of 2 impression techniques for implant-supported prostheses. A master cast was fabricated with four parallel implant abutment analogs and a passive framework. Two groups with 5 casts each were formed: Group 1 (squared impression copings with no splint: S) and Group 2 (splinted squared impression copings, using metal drill burs and Pattern resin: SS). The impression material used was polyvinyl siloxane with open trays for standard preparation of the casts. For each cast, the framework was positioned, and a titanium screw was tightened with 10 N . cm torque in analog A, after which measurements of the abutment-framework interface gaps were performed at analogs C and D. This process was repeated for analog D. These measurements were analyzed using software. A one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) with a confidence interval of 95% was used to analyze the data. Significant differences were detected between S and SS in relation to the master cast (P <= 0.05). The median values of the abutment-framework interface gaps were as follows: master cast: 39.64 mu m; squared impression copings with no splint: 205.86 mu m; splinted squared impression copings: 99.19 mu m. Under the limitations of this study, the technique presented for Group 2 produces better results compared with the technique used for Group 1. (AU)

FAPESP's process: 09/14882-0 - Comparison of the reliability of different impression techniques implant-supported prostheses
Grantee:Fernanda de Matos Moraes
Support Opportunities: Scholarships in Brazil - Scientific Initiation