Accuracy of Conventional and Digital Impressions for Full-Arch Implant-Supported Prostheses: An In Vitro Study.

Both conventional and digital impressions aim to record the spatial position of implants in the dental arches. However, there is still a lack of data to justify the use of intraoral scanning over conventional impressions for full-arch implant-supported prostheses. The objective of the in vitro study was to compare the trueness and precision of conventional and digital impressions obtained with four intra-oral scanners: Trios 4 from 3Shape®, Primescan from Dentsply Sirona®, CS3600 from Carestream® and i500 from Medit®. This study focused on the impression of an edentulous maxilla in which five implants were placed for implant-supported complete prosthesis. The digital models were superimposed on a digital reference model using dimensional control and metrology software. Angular and distance deviations from the digital reference model were calculated to assess trueness. Dispersion of the values around their mean for each impression was also calculated for precision. The mean distance deviation in absolute value and the direction of the distance deviation were smaller for conventional impressions (p-value < 0.001). The I-500 had the best results regarding angular measurements, followed by Trios 4 and CS3600 (p < 0.001). The conventional and I-500 digital impressions showed the lowest dispersion of values around the mean (p-value < 0.001). Within the limitations of our study, our results revealed that the conventional impression was more accurate than the digital impression, but further clinical studies are needed to confirm these findings.

Abutment rotational freedom on five implant systems with different internal connections.

STATEMENT OF PROBLEM: Information regarding the rotational freedom of internal connection implants is sparse. PURPOSE: The purpose of this in vitro study was to compare the rotational freedom of different internal conical and internal nonconical connections. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Thirty implants, 30 straight manufactured standard abutments, and 30 standard abutment screws were obtained for each of the 5 implant systems tested. Three implant systems had indexed internal conical connections with different antirotational geometries: hexagon (Naturall+), cam-groove (ID CAM M), and octagon (Bone Level). Two implant systems had internal nonconical connections with hexagonal antirotational geometry (Tapered Screw-Vent and Seven). The implants were mounted in a steel plate, and a metal reference arm was attached to the abutment. Before tightening the standard abutment screw, a modified torque wrench was used to rotate the abutment clockwise until reaching the clockwise rotational endpoint. This modified torque wrench was connected to the abutment's outer surface. It allowed free access to the standard abutment screw for a second torque wrench, specific to each implant system. The modified torque wrench applied a controlled torque of 5 Ncm, which held the abutment at the clockwise rotational endpoint. The standard abutment screw was then tightened to the manufacturer's specified torque value with the second torque wrench. Angle value corresponding to the clockwise endpoint was measured microscopically between a fixed reference point on the steel plate and the reference arm. The abutment was then unscrewed and removed. The same procedure was carried out to rotate the abutment counterclockwise and measure the angle value corresponding to the counterclockwise rotational endpoint. The rotational freedom was finally determined from the differences in the angles between the clockwise and counterclockwise rotational endpoints. Rotational freedom angle values were summarized as descriptive statistics (means, standard deviations). The normality test (Kolmogorov-Smirnov) was applied, and the Kruskal-Wallis test was performed. The Wilcoxon signed-rank test was used to isolate the implant system differences from each other (α=.05). RESULTS: The lowest mean rotational freedom angles were obtained for Bone Level (conical connection, 0.17 degrees) and Tapered Screw-Vent (nonconical connection, 0.05 degrees). These systems were followed in increasing order by ID CAM M (conical connection, 0.50 degrees), Seven (nonconical connection, 1.98 degrees), and Naturall+ (conical connection, 2.49 degrees). Compared with each other, all implant systems had significant statistical differences in rotational freedom angles (P<.05). CONCLUSIONS: Significant differences were found among the 5 implant systems. The lowest mean rotational freedom angles were obtained both with a conical connection (Bone Level) and a nonconical connection (Tapered Screw-Vent).

Torque resistance of impression copings after direct implant impression: An in vitro evaluation of impression materials with and without adhesive.

STATEMENT OF PROBLEM: No data are available on the ability of an impression coping to resist the manual placement of an abutment replica (implant analog) during prosthodontic laboratory procedures after a direct (pick-up) impression. PURPOSE: The purpose of this in vitro study was to evaluate the torque resistance of impression copings after a direct impression, that is, the amount of rotational torque sufficient to induce irreversible displacement of impression copings in the impression material bulk once the impression has been made. MATERIAL AND METHODS: A reference model with 5 abutment replicas was constructed. Five impression copings were screwed onto the abutment replicas, and standardized impressions were made. A controlled twisting force was applied to each impression coping. A torque tester recorded the torque variation. Three elastomeric impression materials were tested. ANOVA and the Tukey test (α=.05) were performed using an average of 30 measurements per impression material, with and without adhesive. RESULTS: ANOVA and the Tukey test results showed that the adhesive, cohesive, and mechanical bonds between the impression coping and the impression material depended greatly on the type of material and that the average rupture threshold of these bonds was statistically significantly different in pairwise comparisons (P<.05). The curve analysis showed that when the impression materials are used with adhesives, the deformation of the interface is irreversible beyond 5 Ncm of torque. CONCLUSIONS: The polyether impression material is the direct impression material that showed the highest breakdown threshold for adhesive bonding when used without an adhesive. The use of an adhesive on impression copings leads to irreversible deformation of the interface at torque stresses well below the adhesive bond threshold of the same materials used without an adhesive.