Journal articles: 'Implant Impression Closed-Tray Open-Tray'

1

Singh, Navdeep, Saurav Kumar, Thiruvalluvan N, Parag Dua, and Sonam Yangchen. "A modified open tray direct abutment level impression technique: A clinical tip." IP Annals of Prosthodontics and Restorative Dentistry 9, no. 2 (2023): 87–91. http://dx.doi.org/10.18231/j.aprd.2023.018.

Full text

Abstract:

Reproducing the accurate intraoral relationship of an implant through impression making is first step in achieving accurate fit prosthesis. Traditionally impression techniques used in implant dentistry can be classified into closed tray and open tray impression techniques. Open tray impressions are considered to be more accurate as compared to the closed tray impressions in cases with multiple implants. It requires long impression copings which are picked up in the impression during impression procedure thereby reproducing the exact relationship of an implant. Present article describe a modified direct abutment open tray impression technique utilizing applicator tips in absence of long impression copings.

APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles

2

Nidawani, Prakash, Shiva Sai Vemula, Pooja Nagoji, Saumya Singh, and Girish Galagali. "An unconventional impression method using implant mount: an alternative to open-and closed-tray impression technique." International Journal of Dental Materials 05, no. 02 (2023): 37–42. http://dx.doi.org/10.37983/ijdm.2023.5203.

Full text

Abstract:

Background:Various impression techniques have been proposed for making implant prostheses. Impressions are made at implant level –closed and open tray impressions, as well as abutment level impressions. Closed and open tray copings are used to make the impressions. The limitations associated with the implant impression copings, including expensive ones, pose a significant challenge in limited mouth-opening cases, and customization of copings is not feasible.Aim: This study aimed to compare the dimensional accuracy of four impression methods, open-tray, closed-tray, disposable mount as coping and splinted mount as coping.Materials and methods:An ideal maxillary edentulous acrylic model was used with windows created at the canine and molar regions. Four analogues were implanted in the canine and molar areas to represent implants. The analogues were parallel to one other and were orientated at 0 degrees using the surveyor's assistance. Four groups were made: closed-tray, open-tray, implant mount as coping and splinted mount as coping. The custom trays were fabricated, accordingly. The implant-level impressions were made in all the groups using polyether impression material. The impressions were fitted with their respective impression copings with the analogues. The impressions were poured using die stone type-IV, and the casts were made. The resulting casts were 3D scanned, and a virtual model (.stl File) was created. Each .stl file was subjected to Geomagic software to evaluate the three-dimensional accuracy of conventional implant copings and implant mount as copings. Results:The Open-tray and the closed-tray groups exhibited the mean dimensional accuracy of 0.011±0.0016 μm and 0.018±0.0012 μm, respectively. The mount as coping and splinted mount displayed a mean dimensional accuracy of 0.017±0.0008 μm and 0.013±0.0020μm, respectively.Conclusions:This pilot study concludes that the implant mountcan be used as implant impression coping and an alternative to the conventional impression coping.

APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles

3

Assila, Layla, Hicham Soualhi, and Amal El Yamani. "IMPRESSION TECHNIQUES FOR IMPLANT DENTISTRY (PART 2) : OPEN TRAY TECHNIQUES." International Journal of Advanced Research 9, no. 10 (2021): 1227–31. http://dx.doi.org/10.21474/ijar01/13671.

Full text

Abstract:

A highly accurate impression is one of success requirements in implant dentistry. A passively fitting prothesis is achieved when the 3-dimensional position of the implants is precisely transferred to the cast. Various impression techniques are described in the literature. Each one presents indications, qualities and limits. Many studies compared the main techniques which are closed and open-tray impressions along with their specificities. In this second part, the open-tray technique is described and discussed then compared with the closed-tray one.

APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles

4

Omer, Shahla Hama Rasheed, Shang Hussein Muhammed, Shayma Abdulamir Mamandi, and Zina Zakaria Rashid. "Study on Impression Techniques and Materials for Implant among Dentists in Erbil city: A Survey study." Erbil Dental Journal 6, no. 3 (2024): 260–65. http://dx.doi.org/10.15218/edj.2024.30.

Full text

Abstract:

Background and Objectives: The Success and longevity of implant prosthesis is affected by an accurate fit which can be achieved through a proper impression technique and material, the techniques of impression taking can be made by either a closed or open tray impression procedures or by implant level impression technique. The main objective of the presented research was to investigate the most preferable impression material and technique for dental implant placement. Materials and methods: This research’s focus is on impression materials and the various impression techniques that can be used in implant restoration with a note on the recent advancements, with the help of a questionnaire given to dental professionals and postgraduate students who perform implants in Erbil City. Around 72 dentists were chosen, 24 of them were inside our teaching hospital, and 48 of them were chosen by random sampling. Results: The information gathered in this study sample group shows that the highest rate was for open tray technique about 54.2%, 37.5% responded closed tray and 8.3% responded abutment level. Regarding the most preferable material 75% responded for addition silicone, 23.6% responded for condensation silicone and 1.4% responded for alginate. According to most preferable type of tray 93.1% answered perforated stock tray and 6.9% answered special tray. 56.9% of the practitioners chose One step (heavy-light), 22.2% chose two step spaced putty wash, 13.9 % chose one step (monophase single viscosity) and 6.9% answered two-step unspaced putty wash. Conclusions: In conclusion open tray technique, stock tray, addition type of silicon and one-step (heavy-light) impression technique is the most preferable in this study. Keywords: Implant, Impression, open tray, closed tray, abutment, materials.

APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles

5

Debajyoti Sarkar, Shitij Srivastava, Abhinav Shekhar, Amrita Jayaswal, Love Bhatia, and Anshuman Chaturvedi. "EVALUATION OF ACCURACY OF TWO DIFFERENT IMPRESSION MATERIALS AND THREE DIFFERENT IMPRESSION TECHNIQUES ON THE VERTICAL MISFIT OF A THREE UNIT IMPLANT SUPPORTED FIXED DENTURE PROSTHESES." UNIVERSITY JOURNAL OF DENTAL SCIENCES 6, no. 1 (2020): 15–20. http://dx.doi.org/10.21276/ujds.2020.6.1.6.

Full text

Abstract:

   AIM: The aim of the study is to evaluate the accuracy of two different impression materials and three different impression techniques on the vertical misfit of a three-unit implant supported fixed denture prostheses.Materials and Methods: A total of 60 casts were fabricated for the present study with a closed tray, open tray and open tray splinted abutment impression technique. Two different commercially available impression materials were used - polyether and addition silicone. Both the materials were used for all the above impression techniques.Results: Accordingtotheresultderivedfromthisstudypolyethershowedleastmarginalgap.On the other hand on the basis of impression techniques open tray impression with splinted transfer coping also exhibited a minimum marginal gap.Conclusion: 1. Higher marginal accuracy was found in impressions made by polyether compared to polyvinyl siloxane. 2. Open tray splinted technique exhibited a minimum marginal gap when used with polyether as impression material compared to open tray non splinted technique and closed tray technique.  

APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles

6

Ikram, Javed, and Nabeel Essa. "Making an open-tray implant or abutment-level impression technique easier." Dental Update 48, no. 7 (2021): 592–93. http://dx.doi.org/10.12968/denu.2021.48.7.592.

Full text

Abstract:

Various methods exist for taking implant impressions. The open-tray or pick-up impression technique is one of the conventional methods for transferring the impression coping from the implant to the impression. In this method, a window directly above the implant is made in a stock or custom tray to allow access to the impression coping. Traditionally, the window is either left open, or closed with melted wax or foil. This technique tip describes a modification to create a stable and secure seal over the opening using rayon-based adhesive tapes. The benefits of this modification over the conventional open-tray technique are due to the enhanced adhesive quality of the materials to metal or plastic. Because there is less chance of impression material leaking from the tray window into the mouth, it is more comfortable for patients and less messy for clinicians. The benefit of this method over the closed-tray technique is the ability to feel for the head of the impression coping at the same time as making sure the impression material is in good contact with the underlying structures. It is easy to use, and efficient in terms of time and cost.

APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles

7

Arieli, Adi, Maram Adawi, Mahmoud Masri, et al. "The Accuracy of Open-Tray vs. Snap on Impression Techniques in A 6-Implant Model: An In Vitro 3D Study." Materials 15, no. 6 (2022): 2103. http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/ma15062103.

Full text

Abstract:

To compare the three-dimensional accuracy of an open-tray and two snap on impression techniques (with and without connecting the plastic caps of the snap on impression transfers) in a full arch 6-implant model, a reference acrylic resin model of the maxilla with six implants was fabricated. Prominent geometrical triangles, in the palate area, served as reference points for a digital overlap between scans. Three impression transfer techniques were evaluated and compared: open-tray direct impression (DI), snap on impression (SpO), and connected snap on impression (SpOC). Polyether impression material was used to make 30 impressions (n = 10), and the master model and all casts were digitally scanned with a laboratory optical scanner. The obtained 3D data were converted and recorded as STL files, which were imported to a 3D inspection software program. Angular deviations (buccal, occlusal and interproximal planes) between the study casts and the reference model were measured. Data were analyzed using one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) and Tukey post hoc test, with 0.05 used as the level of significance. The 3D angular deviations from the master model revealed no significant differences between the DI and SpO impression groups, but there were significant differences in the SpOC impression group, particularly in the buccal and occlusal planes. In all groups, the 3D angular deviation between the most distal scan abutments on each side of the model was significantly different from all other areas when compared to the master model. Within the limits of this study, it is possible to conclude that the indirect closed tray snap on impression technique with unconnected plastic caps exhibited the same three-dimensional accuracies as the direct open tray technique. The indirect closed tray snap on impression technique with connected plastic caps was less accurate than either the indirect closed tray snap on impression technique with unconnected plastic caps or the direct open tray technique. In the case of full arch implant supported prostheses, inaccuracies may be expected in the most distal implants for all the three impression techniques evaluated in this study. Further in vitro and in vivo research is required.

APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles

8

Dr., Udfer Hameed, Mohd Ali Dr., Qazi Shazana Nazir Dr., Sandeep Kour Bali Dr., and Shabir Ahmed Shah Dr. "Effect of Impression Trays and Materials on the Accuracy of Open Tray Implant Impressions: An in Vitro Comparative Study." International Journal of Innovative Science and Research Technology 8, no. 1 (2023): 263–68. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.7558025.

Full text

Abstract:

One of the most important steps in achieving passive fit of a prosthesis is making precise impressions. The aim of the present study was to evaluate the accuracy of open tray implant impression made with two different impression trays and impression materials. Methodology: The study was carried on a simulated acrylic resin model with two implants placed at premolar and molar region. Open tray implant impressions were made using two different impression trays and materials as follows: Group 1: Polyether custom tray impression, Group 2: Polyether stock tray impression, Group 3: Polyvinylsiloxane custom tray impression and Group 4: Polyvinylsiloxane stock tray impression. Total of Forty impressions were made, making ten for each, and all casts were made with type IV die stone. The accuracy was determined by measuring the inter-implant distance from four impression technique study casts using a profile projector. The stone casts' dimensions were compared to the dimensions of the reference model, which served as a control. To evaluate group means, oneway ANOVA was used to analyse the significant difference between the two implant analogues of each group with the reference model, followed by Tukey's post hoc test for multiple comparison procedures. Results: The results showed the mean deviation from reference model for inter-implant distances for group 1,2,3 & 4 casts were .005 mm, .018 mm, .011 mm, and .026mm, respectively. The four groups that were tested in our study revealed notable variations between them with p-value of 0.005. Conclusion: The custom tray proved to be more accurate than stock tray impression. Whereas casts produced by polyether impression material were comparable with polyvinyl siloxane impression material.

APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles

9

Farronato, Davide, Pietro Mario Pasini, Veronica Campana, Diego Lops, Lorenzo Azzi, and Mattia Manfredini. "Can transfer type and implant angulation affect impression accuracy? A 3D in vitro evaluation." Odontology 109, no. 4 (2021): 884–94. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10266-021-00619-y.

Full text

Abstract:

AbstractImpression accuracy is fundamental to achieve a passive fit between implants and the superstructure. Three transfer types were tested to evaluate the differences in impression accuracy and their efficiency in case of different implant angles. A master model with four implant analogues placed at 0°, 15° and 35° was used. 27 impressions were taken with three different types of impression coping: closed tray technique coping (CT), open tray technique coping (COT) and telescopic open tray coping (TOT). The impressions were poured. Analogues were matched with scan bodies to be scanned and exported in STL. An implant bar was designed from each STL and another one from the master model. A comparison between these bars was obtained. Linear and angular measurements for every type of coping were calculated for different angulations. The collected data were analyzed with ANOVA test (95% of confidence). Student’s t test showed a significative discrepancy (p ≤ 0.001) on linear and angular measurements on Δx, Δy, Δz with different transfer types as well as diverse implant positioning angles (p ≤ 0.001). Within the limitations of this study, it can be concluded that the coping type and the implants divergence may be significant parameters influencing the impression accuracy.

APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles

10

Selvaraj, Sunantha, Jayashree Mohan, Paul Simon, and Jayachandran Dorairaj. "Comparison of Accuracy of Direct Implant Impression Technique using Different Splinting Materials." International Journal of Prosthodontics and Restorative Dentistry 4, no. 3 (2014): 82–89. http://dx.doi.org/10.5005/jp-journals-10019-1112.

Full text

Abstract:

ABSTRACT Introduction The accuracy of an impression remains critical factor in achieving passive fit of an implant framework. The accuracy of the master cast would depend on the type of impression material, the implant impression technique and accuracy of die material. The different impression techniques advocated in the literature for implant impressions include direct (open tray) and indirect (closed tray) techniques. Direct technique use square impression copings that are picked up in the impressions which were used in this study. Objective To evaluate the accuracy of direct impression made with resin splinted and bis-GMA splinted open-tray impression coping. Thus to compare the accuracy of impressions obtained using different splinting materials. Materials and Methods A wax mandibular reference model was fabricated and four implants were placed in the mandibular anterior region using surveyor and acrylized with clear heat cure acrylic resin using injection molding technique. Spaced primary cast was fabricated with a uniform thickness of space about 2 mm. Ten custom trays were fabricated using the light curable resin sheets. Medium body polyether impression material was used. Pentamix was used to get a uniform mix. These trays were randomly divided among the two groups, with five trays in each group. Impression techniques were divided into two groups namely: Group A - direct impression technique with open tray impression copings splinted with autopolymerizing acrylic resin (GC pattern resin), group B - direct impression technique with open tray impression copings splinted with Protemp TM4 (bis- GMA) syringable temporisation material. Thus, final impressions were made. Total of 10 master casts were fabricated. Evaluation of casts using Dynascope-Vision engineering, Tesa Microhite 2D and coordinate measuring machine were used. Results Statistical comparisons were made using ANOVA test and post-hoc test. Same amount of deviation values obtained with resin splinted and bis-GMA splinted impression copings. The difference in the values might be because of the variation in the rigidity of the materials used. Conclusion Both the splinting material exhibit similar accuracy in impression, so bis-GMA can be used, which is easy to handle, less time consuming, less technique sensitive, rigid and readily available material in clinics, instead of resin splinted material which is technique sensitive, more time consuming and cumbersome. How to cite this article Selvaraj S, Mohan J, Simon P, Dorairaj J. Comparison of Accuracy of Direct Implant Impression Technique using Different Splinting Materials. Int J Prosthodont Restor Dent 2014;4(3):82-89.

APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles

11

International, Journal of Medical Science and Innovative Research (IJMSIR). "A Comparative Study to Evaluate The Accuracy of Open Tray Splinted and Non-Splinted Implant Level Impressions and Impressions Obtained From Two Intraoral Scanners For Three Implants Placed in A Partially Edentulous Arch - An in Vitro Study." International Journal of Medical Science and Innovative Research (IJMSIR) 9, no. 4 (2024): 185–97. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.15422901.

Full text

Abstract:

Abstract Title: A comparative study to evaluate the accuracy of open tray splinted and non-splinted implant level impressions and impressions obtained from two intraoral scanners for three implants placed in a partially edentulous arch - an in vitro study Objective: The aim of this in vitro study was to compare and evaluate the accuracy of open tray splinted and non-splinted Implant level impression and impressions obtained from two intraoral scanners for three implants placed in a partially edentulous arch and to evaluate which of the two scanners used (Trios 3 shape and Upsera intraoral scanners) has the better trueness and precision value. Methods: Three implants were placed in a partially edentulous arch model simulating clinical conditions. Impressions were made using open tray splinted and non-splinted techniques and models were fabricated as well as the study model was scanned with two intraoral scanners (Trios 3 shape and Upsera intraoral scanners). The models were then digitally scanned and compared with a reference scan using a Exocad software. Measurements were made by superimposing the group scans over the reference scan. Results: The results revealed that the open tray splinted impression technique was found more accurate than the non-splinted impression techniques. However, impressions obtained from trios 3 shape intraoral scanners showed significantly higher accuracy compared to the other scanner and the conventional impression techniques. The differences in accuracy were statistically significant (p < 0.05) at specific landmarks. Conclusion: Within the limitations of this study, it can be concluded that open tray splinted was superior than non-splinted impression techniques in terms of accuracy for three implants placed in a partially edentulous arch. However, trios 3 shape intraoral scanners demonstrated superior accuracy compared to Upsera intraoral scanner and conventional impression techniques.

APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles

12

Becker, Alexander, Dieter Dirksen, and Christoph Runte. "Comparison of the Accuracy of a Mounting Fixture for Dental Implants for Implant Position Transfer and Open-Tray Implant Level Impression—An In Vitro Study." Dentistry Journal 11, no. 9 (2023): 208. http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/dj11090208.

Full text

Abstract:

The accuracy for the implant position transfer of a mounting fixture and a standardized open-tray implant level impression was compared. Ten aluminum master models with four implant analogs placed in different angulations were fabricated. By performing an open-tray implant level impression stone casts were produced. The master models and stone casts were scanned (comparison group one) using a laboratory scanner. Deviations in the scan body surface were determined in the form of mean (absolute) point distances and (signed) surface distances. The same procedure was performed with a screwed transfer and by fixing the posts of the mounting fixture (comparison group two). The mounting device was applied to each master model and scanned in a fixed and detached state (comparison group three). In a point comparison, the open-tray implant level impression showed mean deviations of 43.6 µm and a mounting fixture of 44.6 µm with no significant differences (p < 0.05). There were significant differences between groups two and three. The angulation of the implants had no effect on the accuracy. In a surface comparison, the open-tray implant level impression showed mean deviations of 36.0 µm and a mounting fixture of 2.0 µm (p > 0.05). Within the limits of this study, the mounting fixture transferred the implant position with the same accuracy as the open-tray implant level impression with respect to point deviations.

APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles

13

Kumar, Varun, Shubham Talele, and Jyotsna Seth. "Comparison of dimensional accuracy of digital impression technique versus conventional impression technique on parallel endosseous dental implants: An in vitro study." International Journal of Oral Health Dentistry 10, no. 4 (2024): 290–95. https://doi.org/10.18231/j.ijohd.2024.051.

Full text

Abstract:

To create an implant prosthesis that fits well, a precise implant impression is necessary. This in vitro study assessed the dimensional accuracy of open tray impressions vs digital impressions taken with an intraoral scanner for tracking the locations of parallel-placed endosseous implants.Two parallel endosseous implants were positioned in a mandibular customized model made up of epoxy resin at the first premolar sites. The inter-implant distance was measured using a Co-ordinate Measuring Machine (SIPCON SVI CNC 3D). Conventional open tray impressions were made using addition silicone, while digital impressions were captured with an intraoral scanner (CEREC OMNICAM). A total of 10 impressions were collected for both techniques. The inter-implant distance for both groups was measured using the analyzing tool in CEREC Dentsply Sirona software and compared with the CMM readings.The mean values of the two groups were compared using a Student's t-test, and statistical significance was established using a p-value threshold of less than 0.05. A p-value of 0.547 for the Open Tray group i.e more than 0.05—showed no statistical significance. When compared to other groups, the digital scan group showed statistically significant outcomes with a p-value of 0.031, which is less than 0.05.Within the limitations of this in vitro study, the results showed that digital impressions demonstrated significantly greater dimensional accuracy compared to conventional (open tray) impressions for parallel-placed endosseous implants.

APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles

14

Chandraker, Neeraj Kumar. "Incremental impression technique for an implant-retained orbital prosthesis." Journal of Indian Prosthodontic Society 25, no. 2 (2025): 185–88. https://doi.org/10.4103/jips.jips_22_25.

Full text

Abstract:

Accurate impressions are an essential prerequisite for fabricating implant-retained maxillofacial prostheses. This article describes an impression technique for recording orbital defects by making increments for an implant-retained orbital prosthesis using an open-tray impression. This technique enables an accurate transfer of implant position and recording of the area of interest. A wide range of impression-transfers, including dental implant impression posts, can also be used.

APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles

15

Paul, Nirupam, Jogeswar Barman, and Barasha Goswami. "Comparative evaluation of linear dimensional accuracy of impressions made with different elastomeric impression materials (Polyether and Polyvinyl siloxane) in angulated and parallel implants-An invitro study." IP International Journal of Maxillofacial Imaging 9, no. 1 (2023): 11–24. http://dx.doi.org/10.18231/j.ijmi.2023.003.

Full text

Abstract:

To date no technique has been proven to guarantee a completely passive fit of implant supported prosthesis framework. Several clinical variables such as angulation of implants, impression material and technique used may affect the precision of impressions. Hence, this study is designed to evaluate and compare the dimensional accuracy of the resultant casts made from open tray implant level impressions with two different impression materials (polyvinyl siloxane and polyether) in parallel and angulated implants. The study consisted of two control groups; master model –1with parallel implants and master model –2 with angulated implants. From master model 1and master model 2, total 40 implant level open tray impressions were made using PVS and polyether impression material and impressions were poured to obtain 40 study casts. The resultant casts were divided into 4 groups (10 casts in each group), according to the impression material used (PVS or Polyether) and implant’s orientation (parallel or angulated) in the casts. All casts were evaluated for the positional accuracy of the implant by using four reference distances with the help of a profile projector. These measurements were compared to the measurements calculated on the master model, which served as a control. The variations of the mean distance values with respective control values within a group were analyzed with one samples’ t’ test at 0.05 significance level. Further the mean distance variations between the groups were analyzed with independent samples ‘t’ test to evaluate group mean variations.The impressions made in the presence of angulated implants were significantly less accurate than the ones made with parallel implants. Regarding impression material the tested polyether resulted advantageous over polivinylsiloxane impression material in terms of recording positional accuracy of implants.

APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles

16

Aziz, Dr Sayqa, Dr Mohsin Malik, Dr Sandeep Kaur Bali, Dr Shazia Mir, and Dr Nazia Majeed Zargar. "Assessment of accuracy of open tray and closed tray dental implant impression techniques: A comparative study." International Journal of Applied Dental Sciences 6, no. 3 (2020): 575–77. http://dx.doi.org/10.22271/oral.2020.v6.i3i.1010.

Full text

APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles

17

Windhorn, Richard J., and Thomas R. Gunnell. "A simple open-tray implant impression technique." Journal of Prosthetic Dentistry 96, no. 3 (2006): 220–21. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.prosdent.2006.07.009.

Full text

APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles

18

Nandini, Vidyashree V., Surya Rengaswamy, and Nikhath Sultana. "A Simple Modified Open Tray Implant Impression Technique in a Patient with Fixed Orthodontic Appliance Therapy." Journal of Clinical Prosthodontics and Implantology 6, no. 1 (2024): 27–29. http://dx.doi.org/10.55995/j-cpi.2024006.

Full text

Abstract:

Background: Implant based restorations are an integral part of orthodontic treatment currently and this combination provides increased treatment options. Making impressions for implant based restorations in subjects undergoing orthodontic treatment is a challenging task. Aim: This article presents a simple technique to achieve precise impressions utilizing commonly available materials in dental operatory. Case Description: Patient undergoing orthodontic therapy requiring replacement of missing lateral incisor was planned for implant placement and crown fabrication simultaneously during fixed appliance therapy. A modified open tray implant impression with polyvinyl siloxane was made during the prosthetic phase for successful rehabilitation of the edentulous space in the anterior region. Clinical Significance: Multidisciplinary approach to treatment is time saving, which includes simultaneous Orthodontic and Prosthodontic procedures. A simple modification of the open tray impression procedure can result in an accurate final cast in the region of interest to overcome the difficulties of impression making in a patient with fixed orthodontic appliance.

APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles

19

Ribeiro, Paulo, Mariano Herrero-Climent, Carmen Díaz-Castro, et al. "Accuracy of Implant Casts Generated with Conventional and Digital Impressions—An In Vitro Study." International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health 15, no. 8 (2018): 1599. http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/ijerph15081599.

Full text

Abstract:

Purpose: The aim of this study was to compare the accuracy of digital dental impressions with the accuracy of impressions obtained via conventional techniques. Methods: Two different master models were created, one with parallel implants (model 1) and the other with non-parallel implants (model 2). These reference master models included 4 Klockner KL RP implants (Klockner Implant System SA, Barcelona, Spain), which were juxta-placed and equidistant in the intermentoneal region. In model 1 the implants were placed parallel to each other, whereas in model 2 the implants were placed such that there was a divergence angle of 15° between the more distal implants, and a convergence angle of 15° between the two central implants. A total of four types of impressions were obtained from model 1 (four groups, n = 10 each), including closed tray impressions with replacement abutments; open tray impression groups for dragging copings, without splinting; open tray impressions for ferrules; and impressions obtained using the 3MTM True Definition Scanner system. For model 2 three groups were created (three groups, n = 10 each), including closed tray impressions with replacement abutments; open tray impression for dragging copings, without splinting; and impressions obtained using the 3MTM True Definition Scanner system. The master models and the models obtained using conventional methods were digitalized in order to compare them via an extraoral high-resolution scanner (Imetric IScan D104i, Porretruy, Switzerland). The STL (Stereo Lithography (format for transferring 3 dimensional shape information)) digital values were loaded into reverse-engineering software and superimposed with their respective STL master models in order to evaluate deviations in three dimensions. We then analyzed the squares of the deviations in the three axes and evaluated the median and the sum of the deviation square. Statistical analysis was performed using the IBM Corp. Released 2016. IBM SPSS Statistics for Windows, Version 24.0. Armonk, NY: IBM Corp. The normality of the distributions was analyzed according to a Kolmogorov-Smirnov test. The median comparison was performed using the differences between the medians, analyzed using non-parametric Kruskal-Wallis and Mann-Whitney tests with a significance level of p < 0.05. Results: For model 1, the deviations of the digital impressions were smaller than those associated with the conventional techniques. The sum value in group D was 1,068,292, which was significantly lower than those of groups A, B, and C, which were shown to be 2,114,342, 2,165,491, and 1,265,918, respectively. This improvement was not observed when using model 2, however, where the conventional techniques yielded similar results. Group F simultaneously presented the lowest total square sum of the three deviations (1,257,835), indicating a significantly higher accuracy for this group in model 2, while the sum values were 1,660,975 and 1,489,328 for groups E and G, respectively. Conclusion: Digital impressions of full-arch models were able to achieve the accuracy of conventional impressions in an in vitro model. Nevertheless, further in vivo studies are needed to validate these in vitro results.

APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles

20

Karl, Matthias, and Victor Palarie. "Variables Affecting the Accuracy of Implant Master Casts: An In Vitro Pilot Study." Journal of Dental Surgery 2014 (May 14, 2014): 1–6. http://dx.doi.org/10.1155/2014/273079.

Full text

Abstract:

Impression and master cast accuracy have been identified as being the major determinants of superstructure fit in implant-supported restorations. The goal of this in vitro investigation was to determine the effects of different transfer components, impression materials, disinfection, storage time, and stone type on master cast accuracy. Following impression making from a reference model with two internal-hex bone-level implants and master cast fabrication (eight experimental groups; n = 5), a bar-type measurement device equipped with a strain gauge was fixed on all master casts while strain development was recorded. Statistical analysis was performed applying ANOVA and paired t-tests with the level of significance set at α = 0.05. The transfer components with plastic sleeves caused maximum misfit strain which was significantly greater as compared to click (P = 0.02) and open tray transfer components (P = 0.00). No significant effect on master cast accuracy was recorded for the parameters impression material, impression disinfection, and storage of impressions or casts. Lower strain development was observed in casts poured in type 3 stone as compared to casts poured in type 4 stone (P = 0.01). For the bone-level implant system considered here, the great levels of accuracy could be achieved using pick-up impressions with either click or open tray impression components.

APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles

21

Ozcelik, Tuncer Burak, and Burak Yilmaz. "A Functional Open-Tray Impression Technique for Implant-Retained Overdenture Prostheses." Journal of Oral Implantology 38, no. 5 (2012): 617–19. http://dx.doi.org/10.1563/aaid-joi-d-10-00159.

Full text

Abstract:

Several implant impression techniques with different materials have been described in the literature. Generally, border molding, functional, and final impressions have been made with 3 different materials, which makes the procedure technique-sensitive and time-consuming. A combination of open-tray and functional impression techniques is described in this technical report. Border molding and functional impression procedures are made at the same time using a vinyl polysiloxane impression material, which makes this technique a simple and time-efficient alternative for clinicians.

APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles

22

Agarwal, Sanjog, V. Ashok, and Subhabrata Maiti. "Open- or Closed-Tray Impression Technique in Implant Prosthesis: A Dentist's Perspective." Journal of Long-Term Effects of Medical Implants 30, no. 3 (2020): 193–98. http://dx.doi.org/10.1615/jlongtermeffmedimplants.2020035933.

Full text

APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles

23

Gupta, Sonam, Aparna Ichalangod Narayan, and Dhanasekar Balakrishnan. "In Vitro Comparative Evaluation of Different Types of Impression Trays and Impression Materials on the Accuracy of Open Tray Implant Impressions: A Pilot Study." International Journal of Dentistry 2017 (2017): 1–8. http://dx.doi.org/10.1155/2017/6306530.

Full text

Abstract:

Purpose. For a precise fit of multiple implant framework, having an accurate definitive cast is imperative. The present study evaluated dimensional accuracy of master casts obtained using different impression trays and materials with open tray impression technique.Materials and Methods. A machined aluminum reference model with four parallel implant analogues was fabricated. Forty implant level impressions were made. Eight groups (n=5) were tested using impression materials (polyether and vinylsiloxanether) and four types of impression trays, two being custom (self-cure acrylic and light cure acrylic) and two being stock (plastic and metal). The interimplant distances were measured on master casts using a coordinate measuring machine. The collected data was compared with a standard reference model and was statistically analyzed using two-way ANOVA.Results. Statistically significant difference (p<0.05) was found between the two impression materials. However, the difference seen was small (36 μm) irrespective of the tray type used. No significant difference (p>0.05) was observed between varied stock and custom trays.Conclusions. The polyether impression material proved to be more accurate than vinylsiloxanether impression material. The rigid nonperforated stock trays, both plastic and metal, could be an alternative for custom trays for multi-implant impressions when used with medium viscosity impression materials.

APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles

24

Izadi, Alireza, Bijan Heidari, Ghodratollah Roshanaei, Hanif Allahbakhshi, and Farnoush Fotovat. "Comparative Study of Dimensional Accuracy in Three Dental Implant Impression Techniques: Open Tray, Closed Tray with Impression Coping, and Snap Cap." Journal of Contemporary Dental Practice 19, no. 8 (2018): 974–81. http://dx.doi.org/10.5005/jp-journals-10024-2368.

Full text

APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles

25

Alikhasi, Marzieh, Hakime Siadat, Alireza Nasirpour, and Mahya Hasanzade. "Three-Dimensional Accuracy of Digital Impression versus Conventional Method: Effect of Implant Angulation and Connection Type." International Journal of Dentistry 2018 (June 4, 2018): 1–9. http://dx.doi.org/10.1155/2018/3761750.

Full text

Abstract:

Purpose. The aim of this in vitro study was to compare the accuracy of different implant impression techniques of the maxillary full arch with tilted implants of two connection types. Materials and Methods. Two maxillary edentulous acrylic resin models with two different implant connections (internal or external) served as a reference model. Each model had two anterior straight and two posterior angulated implants. Ninety impressions were made using an intraoral scanner (Trios 3Shape) with scan bodies for digital impression (groups DII and DIE), a custom open tray with additional silicone for the conventional direct group (groups CDI and CDE), and a custom closed tray with additional silicone for the conventional indirect group (groups CII and CIE) from both internal and external models, respectively. A coordinate-measuring machine (CMM) was used to measure linear and angular displacement for conventional specimens. For digital groups, an optical CMM was used to scan the reference model. STL data sets from the digital specimen were superimposed on STL reference data sets to assess angular and linear deviations. Data were analyzed with three-way ANOVA and t-test at α=0.05. Results. There were significant angular and linear distortion differences among three impression groups (P<0.001), angular distortion differences between internal and external connections (P<0.001), and between straight and tilted implants for either linear (P<0.001) or angular (P=0.002) distortion. The type of the connection and implant angle did not have any effect on linear and angular distortion of the digital technique (p>0.05). Minimum angular and linear distortion was seen for tilted implants in DII and DIE groups (0.36° ± 0.37 and 0.16 ± 0.1 mm). Conclusion. Impression techniques (digital versus conventional) affected the transfer accuracy. Digital techniques demonstrated superior outcome in comparison with conventional methods, and the direct technique was better than the indirect conventional technique. Connection type and implant angulation were other factors that influenced accuracy. However, when digital impression was applied, accuracy was not affected by the type of connection and angulation.

APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles

26

Moretti, Karen Petená, Rafael Antônio De Castro, Patricia Aparecida Ana, Renata Pilli Jóias, and Renato Morales Jóias. "Comparison between open and closed-tray impression techniques on the implant transfer accuracy." Brazilian Dental Science 21, no. 3 (2018): 320. http://dx.doi.org/10.14295/bds.2018.v21i3.1568.

Full text

APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles

27

assila, Layla, hicham soualhi, and amal elyamani. "IMPRESSION TECHNIQUES FOR IMPLANT DENTISTRY (PART 1) : CLOSED TRAY TECHNIQUES." International Journal of Advanced Research 6, no. 12 (2018): 1249–52. http://dx.doi.org/10.21474/ijar01/8260.

Full text

APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles

28

IRANI, Dany, and Mayssaê EL AHMADIÉ. "Effects of impression material and implant angulation on the impression accuracy of external connection implants: An in vitro study." International Arab Journal of Dentistry 11, no. 1 (2020): 11–18. http://dx.doi.org/10.70174/iajd.v11i1.451.

Full text

Abstract:

A precise impression is mandatory to obtain passive fit in implant-supported prostheses. The aim of this study was to evaluate the effect of impression material and implant angulation on the impression accuracy of external-connection implants. Four customized epoxy resin master models, with twoimplant analogs placed parallel or with different degrees of divergence (10, 20 and 30 degrees), were fabricated with their corresponding passively fitted reference frameworks. Ten impressions were taken, for each model, with vinyl polysiloxane (VPS) and polyether (PE) using custom open tray impression technique. Impressions were poured with type IV dental stone and vertical discrepancies between the reference frameworks and the platforms of the implant replicas were evaluated, with a stereo video microscope, applying the one-screw test. The data were analyzed using two-way ANOVA, Sidak, and one-sample t-test at p ≤ 0.05. No significant differences were found between PE and VPS at various angulations (p > 0.05). However, all groups showed a significant difference (p < 0.05) when compared to their true values. Within the limitations of this study, impression material and implant angulation had no significant effect on impression accuracy of external connection implants.

APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles

29

Paes-Junior, Tarcisio José de Arruda, Paolo Freitas, Renato Sussumu Nishioka, Gabriela Nogueira de Melo Nishioka, and Leonardo Jiro Nomura Nakano. "Open tray impression technique using a silica-nylon mesh for splitting implants: a case report." ARCHIVES OF HEALTH INVESTIGATION 10, no. 7 (2021): 1141–46. http://dx.doi.org/10.21270/archi.v10i7.5301.

Full text

Abstract:

This article describes an alternative open tray technique for implant impressions using a novel reinforced silica-nylon mesh covered with acrylic resin as a splitting system in assembling the abutment complex. The purpose of the procedure is to simplify the technique and improve the resin contraction during clinical procedure, and also optimizes and reduces the chairside time for the patient. The clinical report was supported by an in vitro study where an analysis tool, Strain Gauge Analysis, was used to prove the clinical effectiveness of the technique. The peri-implant strain was determined on polyurethane casts with the torqued prosthesis, and statistically there was no difference in strain under torque of transfers or in the final prosthesis. The nylon mesh attached to acrylic resin represents a promising option for open tray impression technique, creating a resistant union to transfer in an excellent procedure time.

APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles

30

Chang, Brian Myung W., and Robert F. Wright. "A solid bar splint for open-tray implant impression technique." Journal of Prosthetic Dentistry 96, no. 2 (2006): 143–44. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.prosdent.2006.06.004.

Full text

APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles

31

Prerna, Kaushik, Lahori Manesh, Shahi Shikha, Sisodiya Siddharth, Agarwal Abhinav, and Srivastava Neha. "An in-vitro study to evaluate the accuracy of master casts obtained from different transfer impression techniques for a multi-unit implant restoration using two different impression materials evaluated by a 3-D optical scanner." Journal of Orofacial Rehabilitation 5, no. 1 (2025): 3–11. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.15557573.

Full text

Abstract:

Abstract Background: The precise transfer of implant positions from the oral cavity to the working cast is critical for the passive fit of implant-supported prostheses. This study aimed to evaluate and compare the accuracy of master casts obtained through various impression techniques using two elastomeric materials—Polyvinyl Siloxane (PVS) and Polyether (PE)—assessed using a 3D optical scanning system (DWOS). Materials and Methods: An edentulous maxillary reference model with four internal connection implants was used. Forty impressions were made using custom trays and categorized into eight groups (n=5 each) based on impression technique (closed/open tray), coping modification (non-modified, sandblasted, or splinted), and impression material (PVS or PE). Master casts were fabricated from each impression, and positional accuracy of implant analogues was evaluated using a DWOS 3D scanner by measuring horizontal distances between implants 2–3 and 1–4. Statistical analysis was performed using one-way ANOVA. Results: The mean reference distances between implants 2–3 and 1–4 were 1.308" and 2.748", respectively. Although variations were observed across different groups, the differences in accuracy were not statistically significant. Splinted copings exhibited the highest accuracy, followed by sandblasted and non-modified copings. Polyether impressions showed slightly better agreement with the reference model, but the difference was not statistically significant. Conclusion: Within the limitations of this in vitro study, both PVS and PE impression materials yielded clinically acceptable accuracy in transferring implant positions. Non-splinted, non-modified impression copings provided comparable results, offering a simpler and more time-efficient approach. Further clinical studies are necessary to validate these findings under intraoral conditions.

APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles

32

Villias, Aristeidis, Triantafillos Papadopoulos, Nikolaos Polychronakis, Hercules Karkazis, and Gregory Polyzois. "Effect of digital workflow on the marginal fit of long-span implant-supported bars for kennedy ii class removable prostheses in vitro." STOMATOLOGY EDU JOURNAL 8, no. 1 (2021): 33–44. http://dx.doi.org/10.25241/stomaeduj.2021.8(1).art.4.

Full text

Abstract:

Introduction The production procedures, including impressions, introduce errors affecting the passivity of fit. A completely digital workflow is possible nowadays because of the intraoral scanners (IOS). This study aimed to evaluate the effect of the impression technique (conventional versus digital) and the screw tightening sequence on the marginal discrepancy (MD) of implant-supported bars. Methodology This laboratory study was conducted on a simulated Kennedy class II edentulous maxilla with three parallel implants in the edentulous quartile. The closed tray technique with a-silicon (CTM) and the intraoral scanning with the I-Tero™ system (IOS) were compared and three bars were manufactured from each technique. Depending on the screw tightening sequence (A11 and A17) 4 groups were created with 6 samples each. The MD was examined implementing 24 negative replicas, which were sectioned and studied under a stereomicroscope. The Horizontal Discrepancy (BHD), Vertical Discrepancy (BVD) and Conical Discrepancy (BCD) of the bar were calculated on the means of the measurements of the horizontal, the vertical and the conical MD respectively. The descriptive statistics, normality tests, one-way ANOVA (a=.05) and post-hoc Tukey’s tests were run and the graphs were draw with SPSS. Results There was a significant effect (P<.05) of the impression technique combined with the screw tightening sequence on all variables. The post-hoc Tukey’s tests revealed significant differences between all groups except from those of the same impression technique only for the BHD (P<.05). Conclusion In this study all groups resulted in marginal discrepancies. The closed tray impression technique gave better results.

APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles

33

Raviv, Eli, Jan Hanna, Roy Raviv, and Mili Harel-Raviv. "A Clinical Report on the Use of Closed-Tray, Hex-Lock-Friction-Fit Implant Impression Copings." Journal of Oral Implantology 40, no. 4 (2014): 449–53. http://dx.doi.org/10.1563/aaid-joi-d-11-00056.

Full text

Abstract:

The precision of an impression determines the subsequent accuracy and fit of the final restoration. Therefore, the ultimate search is for the most accurate impression material and the most efficient and least time consuming technique. One of the major debates in implant dentistry has focused on the advantages of the pick-up versus the transfer impression technique. The pick-up technique is widely accepted as the more accurate. However, the conventional transfer technique is simpler and less time consuming. The Hex-Lock-Friction-Fit impression coping (AB Dental Devices) combines the advantages of the transfer impression technique and the pick-up impression technique. In this article we will review the relevant literature, discuss the advantages of this unique implant impression technique, and present some related clinical cases.

APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles

34

Emara, Nermine Fayez, Safaa E. Asal, and Tamer M. N. Mostafa. "Comparative study of conventional and digital implant impression techniques with different implant angulations (in-vitro study)." Tanta Dental Journal 22, no. 1 (2025): 8–14. https://doi.org/10.4103/tdj.tdj_10_24.

Full text

Abstract:

Abstract Purpose Comparing cast accuracy of unsplinted open tray implant impression technique to digital impressions at different implant angulations using two measurement methods [Coordinate Measuring Machine (CMM) and Geomagic software]. Materials and methods Two mandibular completely edentulous epoxy resin models (A and B) representing a clinical scenario: model A four implant analogs parallel to each other, two at the canine region and two at the first molar region, and model B four implant analogs with different angulation; two at the canine region with 15º angles, and two at the first molar region with 30º angles. Impressions were taken 15 times for each technique (direct unsplinted conventional impression technique and digital impression using an extraoral scanner). Casts obtained from the conventional and the digital techniques were measured by a CMM and Geomagic software. Data were collected and statistically analyzed. The level of significance was set at P value less than or equal to 0.05. Results Statistically significant differences in accuracy were found between the two groups; in conventional impression (P ≤ 0.05) whereas in digital (P ≥ 0.05). Conclusion There is a difference between digital and conventional impressions, with digital impressions exhibiting a greater resemblance to reference measurements. This difference is clinically acceptable for parallel implants but not for angled implants. The angulation did not affect the accuracy of the digital impression. Both CMM and Geomagic software resulted in the exact measurements with the same accuracy and difference between them.

APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles

35

Bhansali, Sumit, Sonal Priya Bhansali, and Priyanka Negi. "A modified open tray implant impression technique for limited mouth opening." Journal of Prosthetic Dentistry 118, no. 1 (2017): 116–17. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.prosdent.2016.09.030.

Full text

APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles

36

Lam, Tran Hung, Nguyen Phuong Hang, Lam Dai Phong, Vo Chi Hung, and Hoang Viet. "Comparison of Accuracy between Digital and Conventional Impression Techniques in Full-Arch Edentulous Implant Patients: An In Vitro Study." Dental Hypotheses 16, no. 2 (2025): 53–55. https://doi.org/10.4103/denthyp.denthyp_10_25.

Full text

Abstract:

Introduction: We aimed to compare the accuracy of digital and conventional impression techniques in full-arch edentulous implant patients and to evaluate the impact of using an auxiliary geometry part (AGP). Methods: A mandibular edentulous stone cast with four multiunit abutment analogs was fabricated as the master cast. This cast was scanned using an industrial scanner to generate reference data. Impressions were then obtained using three techniques: intraoral scanning (IOS), IOS with an AGP (IOS-AGP), and the open-tray splinted conventional technique (OTS). The precision of the impression methods was evaluated by measuring the distance and angle between the right distal implant and the other three implants. Precision was assessed using the coefficient of variation. Results: Regarding distance assessments IOS-AGP group showed a statistically significant lower coefficient of variation in comparison with IOS and OTS. Regarding angle assessments, we found statistically nonsignificant differences among IOS, OTS, and IOS-AGP groups. Conclusion: Full-arch digital implant impressions using IOS-AGP provided superior accuracy for distance measurement compared to conventional impressions.

APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles

37

Kim, Kyoung Rok, Kyoung-young Seo, and Sunjai Kim. "Conventional open-tray impression versus intraoral digital scan for implant-level complete-arch impression." Journal of Prosthetic Dentistry 122, no. 6 (2019): 543–49. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.prosdent.2018.10.018.

Full text

APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles

38

Assaf, Mohammad, and Alaa' Z. Abu Gharbyeh. "Screw-retained crown restorations of single implants: A step-by-step clinical guide." European Journal of Dentistry 08, no. 04 (2014): 563–70. http://dx.doi.org/10.4103/1305-7456.143645.

Full text

Abstract:

ABSTRACTThis paper shows the clinical steps for preparing a screw-retained crown for the restoration of a single implant. Impression-taking using open-tray technique and delivery of the crown is presented in a step-by-step manner elucidated by detailed photographs. Furthermore, the advantages and disadvantages of screw-retained crowns are discussed in comparison with the cemented restorations.

APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles

39

Hegazi, Hend Mahmoud Mohamed. "Mini-Implants and Zirconium Crowns in Treating Congenitally Missing Maxillary Lateral Incisors: Case Report." Balkan Journal of Dental Medicine 23, no. 1 (2019): 45–49. http://dx.doi.org/10.2478/bjdm-2019-0009.

Full text

Abstract:

SummaryBackground/Aim: A problem of congenitally missing lateral incisors is frequently encountered in dentistry, with several available treatment modalities, the choice depending on each case. Case Report: A young female patient with bilateral missing lateral incisors was in need for dental treatment for esthetics. She had spacing among the upper anterior teeth with class I molar relationship. Orthodontic space creation was carried out followed by two-piece mini dental implant placement. Two-stage protocol was followed. After osseointegration, implants were exposed. Healing collars were installed to allow mucosal healing. Closed tray implant level impression was taken. Zirconium crowns were chosen for optimum esthetic results. Conclusions: Mini-implants can be used successfully for restoring congenitally missing lateral incisors after space opening. Esthetic results can be enhanced using Zirconium crowns

APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles

40

Kurian, Nirmal, Kevin George Varghese, Samiksha Wadhwa, and Aneeta Mary Sabu. "A technique to splint open-tray implant impression transfer copings using ligature wire." Dental Update 52, no. 5 (2025): 360–61. https://doi.org/10.12968/denu.2025.52.5.360.

Full text

APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles

41

Pujari, Malesh, Pooja Garg, and D. R. Prithviraj. "Evaluation of Accuracy of Casts of Multiple Internal Connection Implant Prosthesis Obtained From Different Impression Materials and Techniques: An In Vitro Study." Journal of Oral Implantology 40, no. 2 (2014): 137–45. http://dx.doi.org/10.1563/aaid-joi-d-10-00207.

Full text

Abstract:

Movement of impression copings inside the impression material using a direct (open tray) impression technique during clinical and laboratory phases may cause inaccuracy in transferring the 3-dimensional spatial orientation of implants intraorally to the cast. Consequently, the prosthesis may require corrective procedures. This in vitro study evaluated the accuracy of 3 different impression techniques using polyether and vinyl polysiloxane (VPS) impression material to obtain a precise cast for multiple internal connection implants. A reference acrylic resin model with 4 internal connection implants was fabricated. Impressions of the reference model were made using 3 different techniques and 2 different impression materials. The study consisted of 24 specimens divided into 6 groups of 4 each. Impressions were poured with ADA type IV stone (Kalrock, Kalabhai Karson Pvt Ltd, Mumbai, India). All casts were evaluated for the positional accuracy (mm) of the implant replica heads using a profile projector. These measurements were compared to the measurements calculated on the reference resin model, which served as a control. Data were analyzed with 2-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) followed by Bonferroni multiple comparison procedures to evaluate group means. The results revealed significant difference for anterior implant distance between the 2 impression materials (P &lt; .01) and also among the 3 different techniques (P &lt; .05). The lowest mean variation was found with the polyether impression material and the splinted technique. For posterior implants, the results suggested no significant difference between the 2 impression materials (P ≥ .05). Although results were not statistically significant, the polyether impression material showed the lowest mean variation as compared to the VPS impression material. However, there was a significant difference among the 3 different techniques (P &lt; .05). Among the 3 different techniques, the lowest mean variation between 2 posterior implants was found in the splinted technique. Casts obtained from impression techniques using square impression copings splinted together with autopolymerizing acrylic resin prior to the impression procedure were more accurate than casts obtained from impressions with nonmodified implant impression copings and with airborne particle–abraded, adhesive-coated copings. Casts obtained from polyether impression material were more accurate than casts obtained from vinyl polysiloxane impression material.

APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles

42

Selecman, Audrey M., and Russell A. Wicks. "Making an implant-level impression using solid plastic, press-fit, closed-tray impression copings: A clinical report." Journal of Prosthetic Dentistry 101, no. 3 (2009): 158–59. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/s0022-3913(09)60020-2.

Full text

APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles

43

Stefos, Spyridon, Stefanos Kourtis, Aspasia Sarafianou, and Panagiotis Zoidis. "The Influence of Impression Material on the Accuracy of the Master Cast in Implant Restorations." Open Dentistry Journal 12, no. 1 (2018): 1123–36. http://dx.doi.org/10.2174/1874210601812011123.

Full text

Abstract:

Aim: The precise framework fit is important for the success of implant restorations. The purpose of the present study was to examine the effect of two different impression materials both of their medium viscosity on the master cast accuracy when parallel and inclined implants were used. Materials and Methods: An epoxy master cast with three implants was fabricated. The first two implants were parallel to each other and perpendicular to the horizontal plane and the third implant had a 250 inclination in reference to the other two. A passively fitting metal framework that was fabricated over this master cast was used to measure accuracy of fit. Five closed tray impressions for each medium viscosity material (polyether and polyvinyl-siloxane) tested were taken and the respective ten stone casts with three implant analogs were fabricated. The metal framework in the master cast, was fixed in the new specimens and the micro-gap between this prosthesis and the implant analogs was evaluated. The specimens were observed to an optical microscope and digital photography. Results and Conclusion: The data were statistically analysed using a computer software and t-test. Polyether exhibited higher micro-gap mean values (93,4 to 61,8 μm) compared to polyvynil siloxane (30,47 to 14,83μm). The differences were statistically significant only for implant B. The categorical regression analysis (p < 0.01) for all implants showed that the marginal micro-gap was affected by the impression material (94.1%) and significantly by the type of it. The micro-gap values were higher for polyether compared to polyvinyl-siloxane. The torqued implant did not exhibit any statistically significant effect.

APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles

44

Aliyev, V., E. Rustamov, and D. Ashrafov. "TECHNOLOGY AND FEATURES OF OBTAINING IMPRESSIONS DURING IMPLANTATION USING THE ALL-ON4 METHOD." Scientific heritage, no. 151 (December 26, 2024): 28–29. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.14556002.

Full text

Abstract:

A temporary prosthesis for the period of implant healing, which is 3-4 months, performs an aesthetic function and stabilizes the implants by connecting them. Otherwise, the recommendations for the rehabilitation period are the same as for any other implantation. Following a gentle diet is mandatory for every patient after surgery. The course of the rehabilitation period largely depends on the patient and on compliance with all the doctor’s recommendations. To summarize, we can say that the All-on-4 technique is indicated in situations where it is not possible to install distant (distal) implants and at the same time we do not want (or cannot) perform complex bone grafting over the inferior alveolar nerves (on the lower jaw) or under the maxillary sinuses (on the upper jaw): in this case, All-on-4 implantation allows you to bypass these anatomically important formations.

APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles

45

Michael, Josef Kridanto Kamadjaja, Widjaja Jennifer, and Agustono Satmoko Tumali Bambang. "Screw-retained implant-supported crowns: An option of prosthetic restoration." World Journal of Advanced Research and Reviews 13, no. 2 (2022): 299–303. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.6349774.

Full text

Abstract:

This paper shows the clinical steps for preparing a screw-retained crown for the restoration of a single implant. A 66-year-old female patient came to the clinic wanted to replace partial edentulous after extraction of 24 and 25. Patient wanted to have implant treatment with fixed restoration because he had experienced with the same treatment before in another regions Impression-taking using open-tray technique and delivery of the crown is presented in a step-by-step manner elucidated by detailed photographs. Furthermore, the advantages and disadvantages of screw-retained crowns are discussed in comparison with the cemented restorations.

APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles

46

Michael Josef Kridanto Kamadjaja, Jennifer Widjaja, and Bambang Agustono Satmoko Tumali. "Screw-retained implant-supported crowns: An option of prosthetic restoration." World Journal of Advanced Research and Reviews 13, no. 2 (2022): 299–303. http://dx.doi.org/10.30574/wjarr.2022.13.2.0144.

Full text

Abstract:

This paper shows the clinical steps for preparing a screw-retained crown for the restoration of a single implant. A 66-year-old female patient came to the clinic wanted to replace partial edentulous after extraction of 24 and 25. Patient wanted to have implant treatment with fixed restoration because he had experienced with the same treatment before in another regions Impression-taking using open-tray technique and delivery of the crown is presented in a step-by-step manner elucidated by detailed photographs. Furthermore, the advantages and disadvantages of screw-retained crowns are discussed in comparison with the cemented restorations.

APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles

47

Hayder, Joanna. "Comparison of the accuracy of implant impression by conventional open-tray and digital techniques." Erbil Dental Journal 5, no. 1 (2022): 1–8. http://dx.doi.org/10.15218/edj.2022.1.

Full text

APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles

48

Buzayan, M., M. R. Baig, and N. Yunus. "Evaluation of accuracy of complete-arch multiple-unit abutment-level dental implant impressions using different impression and splinting materials." INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF ORAL & MAXILLOFACIAL IMPLANTS 28, no. 6 (2014): 1512–20. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.8323.

Full text

Abstract:

Purpose: This in vitro study evaluated the accuracy of multiple-unit dental implant casts obtained from splinted or nonsplinted direct impression techniques using various splinting materials by comparing the casts to the reference models. The effect of two different impression materials on the accuracy of the implant casts was also evaluated for abutment-level impressions. Materials and Methods: A reference model with six internal-connection implant replicas placed in the completely edentulous mandibular arch and connected to multi-base abutments was fabricated from heat-curing acrylic resin. Forty impressions of the reference model were made, 20 each with polyether (PE) and polyvinylsiloxane (PVS) impression materials using the open tray technique. The PE and PVS groups were further subdivided into four subgroups of five each on the bases of splinting type: no splinting, bite registration PE, bite registration addition silicone, or autopolymerizing acrylic resin. The positional accuracy of the implant replica heads was measured on the poured casts using a coordinate measuring machine to assess linear differences in interimplant distances in all three axes. The collected data (linear and three-dimensional [3D] displacement values) were compared with the measurements calculated on the reference resin model and analyzed with nonparametric tests (Kruskal-Wallis and Mann-Whitney). Results: No significant differences were found between the various splinting groups for both PE and PVS impression materials in terms of linear and 3D distortions. However, small but significant differences were found between the two impression materials (PVS, 91 mu m; PE, 103 mu m) in terms of 3D discrepancies, irrespective of the splinting technique employed. Conclusions: Casts obtained from both impression materials exhibited differences from the reference model. The impression material influenced impression inaccuracy more than the splinting material for multiple-unit abutment-level impressions.

APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles

49

Maiti, Subhabrata, Madhura Deshmukh, Nabeel Ahmed, and Vaishnavi Rajaraman. "Accuracy of multiple implant impressions using different combinations of impression materials using closed tray technique: An in vitro study." Journal of Advanced Pharmaceutical Technology & Research 13, no. 6 (2022): 412. http://dx.doi.org/10.4103/japtr.japtr_330_22.

Full text

APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles

50

Linkevicius, Tomas, Olga Svediene, Egle Vindasiute, Algirdas Puisys, and Laura Linkeviciene. "The influence of implant placement depth and impression material on the stability of an open tray impression coping." Journal of Prosthetic Dentistry 108, no. 4 (2012): 238–43. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/s0022-3913(12)60169-3.

Full text

APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles

Journal articles on the topic 'Implant Impression Closed-Tray Open-Tray'

Create a spot-on reference in APA, MLA, Chicago, Harvard, and other styles