Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
Comparative in vitro study of the accuracy of impression techniques for dental implants: Direct technique with an elastomeric impression material versus intraoral scanner
Rech-Ortega, Cristina; Fernández-Estevan, Lucía; Solá-Ruíz, M Fermanda; Agustín-Panadero, Rubén; Labaig-Rueda, Carlos.
Afiliación
  • Rech-Ortega, Cristina; University of Valencia. Faculty of Medicine and Dentistry. Department of Dental medicine. Valencia. Spain
  • Fernández-Estevan, Lucía; University of Valencia. Faculty of Medicine and Dentistry. Department of Dental medicine. Valencia. Spain
  • Solá-Ruíz, M Fermanda; University of Valencia. Faculty of Medicine and Dentistry. Department of Dental medicine. Valencia. Spain
  • Agustín-Panadero, Rubén; University of Valencia. Faculty of Medicine and Dentistry. Department of Dental medicine. Valencia. Spain
  • Labaig-Rueda, Carlos; University of Valencia. Faculty of Medicine and Dentistry. Department of Dental medicine. Valencia. Spain
Med. oral patol. oral cir. bucal (Internet) ; 24(1): e89-e95, ene. 2019. ilus, graf, tab
Artículo en Inglés | IBECS | ID: ibc-180411
Biblioteca responsable: ES1.1
Ubicación: BNCS
ABSTRACT

Background:

The aim of this study was to compare a conventional technique (elastomeric impression material - EIM) and a digital technique (scanner digital model - SDM) on a six-analog master model (MM) to determine which was the most exact. Material and

Methods:

Twenty impressions were taken of a master model (EIM) and twenty scanned impressions (SDM) (True Definition). A coordinate measuring machine (CMM) was used to measure the distances between adjacent analogues (1-2, 2-3, 3-4, 4-5, 5-6), intermittently positioned analogues (1-4, 3-6) and the most distal (1-6). Reference values were established from the master model, which were compared with the two impression techniques. The significance level was established as 5% (p<0.05).

Results:

The precision of each technique was compared with MM. For adjacent analogues (1-2), no significant differences were found between EIM-MM (p=0,146). For intermittently positioned analogues (1-4), SDM did not show significant differences with MM (p=0.255). For the distance between distal analogues (1-6), significant differences were found between both tecniques and MM (p=0.001).

Conclusions:

In a clinical situation with < three implants, EIM is more exact than SDM, but in cases of four implants SDM is more exact. For rehabilitations (> four implants), neither technique can be considered accurate although error falls within the tolerance limits established in the literature (30-150μm)
RESUMEN
No disponible
Asunto(s)

Texto completo: Disponible Colección: Bases de datos nacionales / España Base de datos: IBECS Asunto principal: Técnica de Impresión Dental / Diseño de Prótesis Dental / Implantación Dental Endoósea Límite: Humanos Idioma: Inglés Revista: Med. oral patol. oral cir. bucal (Internet) Año: 2019 Tipo del documento: Artículo Institución/País de afiliación: University of Valencia/Spain

Texto completo: Disponible Colección: Bases de datos nacionales / España Base de datos: IBECS Asunto principal: Técnica de Impresión Dental / Diseño de Prótesis Dental / Implantación Dental Endoósea Límite: Humanos Idioma: Inglés Revista: Med. oral patol. oral cir. bucal (Internet) Año: 2019 Tipo del documento: Artículo Institución/País de afiliación: University of Valencia/Spain
...