Advertisement
Journal of Prosthetic Dentistry

Comparison of the accuracy of impressions made of 2 implants with interfering axial convergence with CAD-CAM impression copings and the altered cast technique: An in vitro study

      Abstract

      Statement of problem

      Studies that evaluated the accuracy of different methods for making an impression of 2 implants in close proximity or with adverse axial convergence are lacking.

      Purpose

      The purpose of this in vitro study was to compare the accuracy of impressions made with metal and resin computer-aided design and computer-aided manufacturing (CAD-CAM) impression copings and an altered cast technique.

      Material and methods

      Two implant analogs with an interimplant angulation of 50 degrees were placed in an acrylic resin master model. Thirty impressions were made with 3 techniques (n=10). Two angled abutments were scanned to print 40 impression copings from a castable resin, half of which were cast with nickel-chromium alloy (M-CAD) and half of these were used in the R-CAD group. Impressions were made and poured. For the altered cast technique (Alt-cast), casts with only the mesial analogs were made and hollowed at the site of the distal analogs. The position of the distal analogs was transferred by resin indices (n=10) fabricated with light-polymerized resin on the master model. The linear displacements of mesial (ΔR1) and distal (ΔR2) analogs and the interanalog distance (ΔRt) were measured with a coordinate measuring machine. The data were analyzed by using the Kruskal-Wallis and Dunn post hoc tests (α=.05).

      Results

      No significant difference was found between the M-CAD and R-CAD groups regarding ΔR1 (P=.722), ΔR2 (P=.576), or ΔRt (P=.939). However, the Alt-cast group differed from the M-CAD group in ΔR1 (P<.001), ΔR2 (P<.001), and ΔRt (P=.002) and also from the R-CAD group in ΔR1 (P=.001), ΔR2 (P=.002), and ΔRt (P=.003).

      Conclusions

      The impressions made with metal and resin CAD-CAM impression copings were more accurate than those made with the Alt-cast technique although all techniques had acceptable accuracy.
      To read this article in full you will need to make a payment

      Purchase one-time access:

      Academic & Personal: 24 hour online accessCorporate R&D Professionals: 24 hour online access
      One-time access price info
      • For academic or personal research use, select 'Academic and Personal'
      • For corporate R&D use, select 'Corporate R&D Professionals'

      Subscribe:

      Subscribe to Journal of Prosthetic Dentistry
      Already a print subscriber? Claim online access
      Already an online subscriber? Sign in
      Institutional Access: Sign in to ScienceDirect

      References

        • Buzayan M.M.
        • Yunus N.B.Y.
        Passive fit in screw retained multi-unit implant prosthesis understanding and achieving: A review of the literature.
        J Indian Prosthodont Soc. 2014; 14: 16-23
        • Katsoulis J.
        • Takeichi T.
        • Sol Gaviria A.
        • Peter L.
        • Katsoulis K.
        Misfit of implant prostheses and its impact on clinical outcomes. Definition, assessment and a systematic review of the literature.
        Eur J Oral Implantol. 2017; 10: 121-138
        • Heckmann S.M.
        • Karl M.
        • Wichmann M.G.
        • Winter W.
        • Graef F.
        • Taylor T.D.
        Cement fixation and screw retention: Parameters of passive fit: An in vitro study of three-unit implant-supported fixed partial dentures.
        Clin Oral Implants Res. 2004; 15: 466-473
        • Carr A.B.
        • Gerard D.A.
        • Larsen P.E.
        The response of bone in primates around unloaded dental implants supporting prostheses with different levels of fit.
        J Prosthet Dent. 1996; 76: 500-509
        • Karl M.
        • Taylor T.D.
        Bone adaptation induced by non-passively fitting implant superstructures: A randomized clinical trial.
        Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2016; 31: 369-375
        • Sahin S.
        • Çehreli M.C.
        The significance of passive framework fit in implant prosthodontics: Current status.
        Implant Dent. 2001; 10: 85-92
        • Brånemark P.
        Osseointegration and its experimental background.
        J Prosthet Dent. 1983; 50: 399-410
        • Jemt T.
        Failures and complications in 391 consecutively inserted fixed prostheses supported by Brånemark implants in edentulous jaws: A study of treatment from the time of prosthesis placement to the first annual checkup.
        Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 1991; 6: 270-276
        • Jokstad A.
        • Shokati B.
        New 3D technologies applied to assess the long-term clinical effects of misfit of the full jaw fixed prosthesis on dental implants.
        Clin Oral Implants Res. 2015; 26: 1129-1134
        • Fallah Tafti A.
        • Hatami M.
        • Razavi F.
        • Ebadian B.
        Comparison of the accuracy of open-tray and snap-on impression techniques of implants with different angulations.
        Dent Res J (Isfahan). 2019; 16: 413-420
        • Osman M.
        • Abubakr N.H.
        • Suliman A.
        • Ziada H.
        The impact of impression coping geometrical design on accuracy of implant impressions: An experimental study.
        Int J Implant Dent. 2020; 6: 1-10
        • Richi M.W.
        • Kurtulmus-Yilmaz S.
        • Ozan O.
        Comparison of the accuracy of different impression procedures in case of multiple and angulated implants: Accuracy of impressions in multiple and angulated implants.
        Head Face Med. 2020; 16: 1-12
        • Sabouhi M.
        • Bajoghli F.
        • Dakhilalian M.
        • Beygi A.
        • Abolhasani M.
        Effects of impression coping design, impression technique, and dental undercuts on the accuracy of implant impressions assessed by 3-dimensional optical scanning: An in vitro study.
        Implant Dent. 2016; 25: 238-246
        • Sorrentino R.
        • Gherlone E.F.
        • Calesini G.
        • Zarone F.
        Effect of implant angulation, connection length, and impression material on the dimensional accuracy of implant impressions: An in vitro comparative study.
        Clin Implant Dent Relat Res. 2010; 12: e63-e76
        • Vojdani M.
        • Torabi K.
        • Ansarifard E.
        Accuracy of different impression materials in parallel and nonparallel implants.
        Dent Res J (Isfahan). 2015; 12: 315-322
        • Rashidan N.
        • Alikhasi M.
        • Samadizadeh S.
        • Beyabanaki E.
        • Kharazifard M.J.
        Accuracy of implant impressions with different impression coping types and shapes.
        Clin Implant Dent Relat Res. 2012; 14: 218-225
        • Vitti R.P.
        • Feitosa V.P.
        • Bacchi A.
        • Brandt W.C.
        • Miranda M.E.
        • Sinhoreti M.A.C.
        Dimensional accuracy of different impression techniques of partially edentulous mandibular arch.
        Rev Gaucha Odontol. 2017; 65: 25-29
        • Akhlaghian M.
        • Khaledi A.A.
        • Farzin M.
        • Pardis S.
        Vertical marginal fit of zirconia copings fabricated with one direct and three indirect digital scanning techniques.
        J Prosthet Dent. 2021; 126: 421-426
        • Lee H.
        • So J.S.
        • Hochstedler J.
        • Ercoli C.
        The accuracy of implant impressions: A systematic review.
        J Prosthet Dent. 2008; 100: 285-291
        • Elshenawy E.A.
        • Alam-Eldein A.M.
        • Abd Elfatah F.A.
        Cast accuracy obtained from different impression techniques at different implant angulations (in vitro study).
        Int J Implant Dent. 2018; 4: 9
        • Saboury A.
        • Asli H.N.
        • Kajan Z.D.
        The accuracy of four impression-making techniques in angulated implants based on vertical Gap.
        J Dent (Shiraz). 2017; 18: 289-297
        • Tsagkalidis G.
        • Tortopidis D.
        • Mpikos P.
        • Kaisarlis G.
        • Koidis P.
        Accuracy of 3 different impression techniques for internal connection angulated implants.
        J Prosthet Dent. 2015; 114: 517-523
        • Danesh G.
        • Lippold C.
        • Mischke K.-L.
        • Varzideh B.
        • Reinhardt K.-J.
        • Dammaschke T.
        • et al.
        Polymerization characteristics of light-and auto-curing resins for individual splints.
        Dent Mater J. 2006; 22: 426-433
        • Gibbs S.B.
        • Versluis A.
        • Tantbirojn D.
        • Ahuja S.
        Comparison of polymerization shrinkage of pattern resins.
        J Prosthet Dent. 2014; 112: 293-298
        • Ahuja S.A.
        • Wicks R.A.
        • Brandt R.L.
        Developing a fixture level cast for implants with interfering axial convergence.
        J Tenn Dent Assoc. 2010; 90 (quiz 30-1): 28-29
        • Chaimattayompol N.
        • Arbree N.S.
        • Wong S.X.
        A simple method of making an implant-level impression when presented with limited space, unfavorable implant positions, or problematic implant angulations.
        J Prosthet Dent. 2002; 87: 684-687
        • Mahoorkar S.
        • Jain A.
        • Cauvery K.
        • Kumar P.
        • Havale R.
        Modification of fixture mount to be used as an impression coping in closely placed implants.
        J Clin Diagn Res. 2014; 8: ZD08-ZD10
        • McCartney J.
        Management of implant malalignment precluding transfer coping placement.
        J Prosthet Dent. 1992; 67: 423-425
        • Michalakis K.X.
        • Kalpidis C.D.
        • Kang K.
        • Hirayama H.
        A simple impression technique for dental implants placed in close proximity or adverse angulations.
        J Prosthet Dent. 2005; 94: 293-295
        • Selecman A.M.
        • Wicks R.A.
        Making an implant-level impression using solid plastic, press-fit, closed-tray impression copings: A clinical report.
        J Prosthet Dent. 2009; 101: 158-159
        • Zafiropoulos G.G.
        • Hoffman O.
        Impression of steeply angulated implants: A new method.
        Cosmet Dent. 2015; 1
        • Rekow E.D.
        Digital dentistry: The new state of the art—Is it disruptive or destructive?.
        Dent Mater J. 2020; 36: 9-24
        • Del’Acqua M.A.
        • Chávez A.M.
        • Compagnoni M.A.
        Accuracy of impression techniques for an implant-supported prosthesis.
        Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2010; 25: 715-721