These tools will no longer be maintained as of December 31, 2024. Archived website can be found here. PubMed4Hh GitHub repository can be found here. Contact NLM Customer Service if you have questions.


Pubmed for Handhelds

PUBMED FOR HANDHELDS

Search MEDLINE/PubMed

  • Title: Comparison of Different Impression Techniques When Using the All-on-Four Implant Treatment Protocol.
    Author: Siadat H, Alikhasi M, Beyabanaki E, Rahimian S.
    Journal: Int J Prosthodont; 2016; 29(3):265-70. PubMed ID: 27148987.
    Abstract:
    PURPOSE: The aim of this in vitro study was to compare the accuracy of two different impression techniques for the All-on-Four implant therapy protocol. MATERIALS AND METHODS: An acrylic resin analog for an edentulous maxilla with four internal connection implants (Replace Select, Nobel Biocare) was fabricated according to the All-on-Four protocol. A total of 40 impressions were made with different techniques (open and closed tray) at abutment and implant levels and poured in type IV dental stone. A coordinate measuring machine was used to record the x, y, and z coordinates and angular displacement. The measurements were compared with those obtained from the reference model. Data were analyzed with analysis of variance and t test at α = .05. RESULTS: There was less linear and rotational displacement for the open-tray technique when compared with the closed-tray technique (P = .02 and P < .001, respectively). Impressions made at abutment level produced fewer linear and rotational displacements when compared with implant level impressions using the open-tray technique for straight and angulated implants (P = .04 and P < .001, respectively). However, less rotational dislocation was observed for impressions made with the closed-tray technique when compared with the open-tray technique at implant level (P < .001). CONCLUSION: Choice of impression technique affected the accuracy of impressions, and less displacement was observed with the open-tray method. Abutment-level impressions with an open-tray technique were more accurate, while implant-level impressions were more accurate when a closed-tray technique was used.
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related] [New Search]