Accuracy of impression Techniques with Maxillary Angled implants Using Trays and Multifunctional Guides

• Autor(a) principal: de Souza Bezerra Araújo, Raphael Ferreira [UNESP]
• Data de Publicação: 2021
• Outros Autores: Oliveira, Lucas Portela [UNESP], Filho, João Neudenir Arioli [UNESP], de Assis Mollo Júnior, Francisco [UNESP]
• Tipo de documento: Artigo
• Idioma: eng
• Título da fonte: Repositório Institucional da UNESP
• Texto Completo: http://dx.doi.org/10.11607/jomi.7921; http://hdl.handle.net/11449/229004
• topic: dental implant; dental materials; dental prosthesis

Purpose:The purpose of this study was to evaluate in vitro the accuracy of different splinting techniques using transfers combined with different tray types. Materials and Methods: The research group fabricated a maxillary master cast with four implants and a passive metallic bar on this master cast. For the impression techniques, 48 casts were used with six different impression techniques: (1) metal tray with resin splinted transfers, (2) metal tray with metal and resin splinted transfers, (3) plastic tray with resin splinted transfers, (4) plastic tray with metal and resin splinted transfers, (5) multifunctional guide with resin splinted transfers, and (6) multifunctional guide with metal and resin splinted transfers (n = 8) using polyvinyl siloxane impression material. This study used a passive metallic bar to measure the malalignment between the framework and the analogs (A, B, C, and D) in 2D and 3D. The master and experimental casts were scanned with a contact scanner to compare the accuracy in 3D impression techniques. Discrepancies between the analogs were measured in three x-, y-, and z-axes. Results: There was no statistically significant difference [P > .05) between the groups in vertical malalignments (2D). In the 3D evaluation, for the z-axis and combination of xz-axis, plastic tray with metal, and resin splinted transfers (z = 487 µm; xz = 888 µm), there was a statistically significant difference compared with the multifunctional guide and resin splinted transfers (z = 772 µm; xz = 1,380 µm). When analyzing by analog, in C, the multifunctional guide with metal and resin splinted transfers (302 µm) presented a statistically significant difference compared with the multifunctional guide and resin splinted transfers (492 µm). Conclusion: The evaluation methods for the accuracy impression technique presented different results between them. There was no difference in vertical malalignments (2D), but in 3D, the bonding with metal and acrylic resin presented better results than the bond with only acrylic resin when using the plastic tray and multifunctional guide, respectively, in the z-axis and the combination between the xz-axes. The bonding technique of the transfers with metal and acrylic resin presents better results in the 3D analysis for the multifunctional guide impressions.