Limits...
Comparison of Dimensional Accuracy between Open-Tray and Closed-Tray Implant Impression Technique in 15° Angled Implants.

Balouch F, Jalalian E, Nikkheslat M, Ghavamian R, Toopchi Sh, Jallalian F, Jalalian S - J Dent (Shiraz) (2013)

Bottom Line: Various impression techniques have different effects on the accuracy of final cast dimensions.Impression trays were filled with poly ether, and then the two impression techniques (open tray and closed tray) were compared.The obtained results indicated that closed tray impression technique was significantly different in dimensional accuracy when compared with open tray method.

View Article: PubMed Central - PubMed

Affiliation: Dept. of Prosthodontics, Dental Branch, Islamic Azad University, Tehran, Iran.

ABSTRACT

Statement of problem: Various impression techniques have different effects on the accuracy of final cast dimensions. Meanwhile; there are some controversies about the best technique.

Purpose: This study was performed to compare two kinds of implant impression methods (open tray and closed tray) on 15 degree angled implants.

Materials and method: In this experimental study, a steel model with 8 cm in diameter and 3 cm in height were produced with 3 holes devised inside to stabilize 3 implants. The central implant was straight and the other two implants were 15° angled. The two angled implants had 5 cm distance from each other and 3.5 cm from the central implant. Dental stone, high strength (type IV) was used for the main casts. Impression trays were filled with poly ether, and then the two impression techniques (open tray and closed tray) were compared. To evaluate positions of the implants, each cast was analyzed by CMM device in 3 dimensions (x,y,z). Differences in the measurements obtained from final casts and laboratory model were analyzed using t-Test.

Results: The obtained results indicated that closed tray impression technique was significantly different in dimensional accuracy when compared with open tray method. Dimensional changes were 129 ± 37μ and 143.5 ± 43.67μ in closed tray and open tray, while coefficient of variation in closed- tray and open tray were reported to be 27.2% and 30.4%, respectively.

Conclusion: Closed impression technique had less dimensional changes in comparison with open tray method, so this study suggests that closed tray impression technique is more accurate.

No MeSH data available.


Acrylic customized open tray
© Copyright Policy
Related In: Results  -  Collection

License
getmorefigures.php?uid=PMC3927672&req=5

Figure 2: Acrylic customized open tray

Mentions: For making the main cast, dental stone, high strength (type IV, Ernest hinritchs; Germany) was used in a vacuumed mixer apparatus. The whole implant was fixed using cyanoacrylate. All operations were implemented by one operator. Trays were prepared from polymerizable acryl in visible light (megadenta; Germany) and polymerized for 6 minutes (Figure 2). The trays were then trimmed and perforated to enhance gripping of the impression material. Meanwhile, the main cast was equipped with two guide pins in order to fit the designed tray using open tray method.


Comparison of Dimensional Accuracy between Open-Tray and Closed-Tray Implant Impression Technique in 15° Angled Implants.

Balouch F, Jalalian E, Nikkheslat M, Ghavamian R, Toopchi Sh, Jallalian F, Jalalian S - J Dent (Shiraz) (2013)

Acrylic customized open tray
© Copyright Policy
Related In: Results  -  Collection

License
Show All Figures
getmorefigures.php?uid=PMC3927672&req=5

Figure 2: Acrylic customized open tray
Mentions: For making the main cast, dental stone, high strength (type IV, Ernest hinritchs; Germany) was used in a vacuumed mixer apparatus. The whole implant was fixed using cyanoacrylate. All operations were implemented by one operator. Trays were prepared from polymerizable acryl in visible light (megadenta; Germany) and polymerized for 6 minutes (Figure 2). The trays were then trimmed and perforated to enhance gripping of the impression material. Meanwhile, the main cast was equipped with two guide pins in order to fit the designed tray using open tray method.

Bottom Line: Various impression techniques have different effects on the accuracy of final cast dimensions.Impression trays were filled with poly ether, and then the two impression techniques (open tray and closed tray) were compared.The obtained results indicated that closed tray impression technique was significantly different in dimensional accuracy when compared with open tray method.

View Article: PubMed Central - PubMed

Affiliation: Dept. of Prosthodontics, Dental Branch, Islamic Azad University, Tehran, Iran.

ABSTRACT

Statement of problem: Various impression techniques have different effects on the accuracy of final cast dimensions. Meanwhile; there are some controversies about the best technique.

Purpose: This study was performed to compare two kinds of implant impression methods (open tray and closed tray) on 15 degree angled implants.

Materials and method: In this experimental study, a steel model with 8 cm in diameter and 3 cm in height were produced with 3 holes devised inside to stabilize 3 implants. The central implant was straight and the other two implants were 15° angled. The two angled implants had 5 cm distance from each other and 3.5 cm from the central implant. Dental stone, high strength (type IV) was used for the main casts. Impression trays were filled with poly ether, and then the two impression techniques (open tray and closed tray) were compared. To evaluate positions of the implants, each cast was analyzed by CMM device in 3 dimensions (x,y,z). Differences in the measurements obtained from final casts and laboratory model were analyzed using t-Test.

Results: The obtained results indicated that closed tray impression technique was significantly different in dimensional accuracy when compared with open tray method. Dimensional changes were 129 ± 37μ and 143.5 ± 43.67μ in closed tray and open tray, while coefficient of variation in closed- tray and open tray were reported to be 27.2% and 30.4%, respectively.

Conclusion: Closed impression technique had less dimensional changes in comparison with open tray method, so this study suggests that closed tray impression technique is more accurate.

No MeSH data available.