We are using cookies to implement functions like login, shopping cart or language selection for this website. Furthermore we use Google Analytics to create anonymized statistical reports of the usage which creates Cookies too. You will find more information in our privacy policy.
OK, I agree I do not want Google Analytics-Cookies
The International Journal of Oral & Maxillofacial Implants



Forgotten password?


Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 30 (2015), No. 1     21. Jan. 2015
Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 30 (2015), No. 1  (21.01.2015)

Page 26-34, doi:10.11607/jomi.3487, PubMed:25506645

Evaluation of the Three-Dimensional Accuracy of Implant Impression Techniques in Two Simulated Clinical Conditions by Optical Scanning
Sabouhi, Mahmoud / Bajoghli, Farshad / Abolhasani, Majid
Purpose: The success of an implant-supported prosthesis is dependent on the passive fit of its framework fabricated on a precise cast. The aim of this in vitro study was to digitally compare the three-dimensional accuracy of implant impression techniques in partially and completely edentulous conditions.
Materials and Methods: The master model simulated two clinical conditions. The first condition was a partially edentulous mandibular arch with an anterior edentulous space (D condition). Two implant analogs were inserted in bilateral canine sites. After elimination of the teeth, the model was converted to a completely edentulous condition (E condition). Three different impression techniques were performed (open splinted [OS], open unsplinted [OU], closed [C]) for each condition. Six groups of casts (DOS, DOU, DC, EOS, EOU, EC) (n = 8), totaling 48 casts, were made. Two scan bodies were secured onto the master edentulous model and onto each test cast and digitized by an optical scanning system. The related scans were superimposed, and the mean discrepancy for each cast was determined.
Results: The statistical analysis showed no significant difference in the accuracy of casts as a function of model status (P = .78, analysis of variance [ANOVA] test), impression technique (P = .57, ANOVA test), or as the combination of both (P = .29, ANOVA test). The distribution of data was normal (Kolmogorov-Smirnov test).
Conclusion: Model status (dentate or edentulous) and impression technique did not influence the precision of the casts. There is no difference among any of the impression techniques in either simulated clinical condition.

Keywords: accuracy, dental implant, impression technique, three-dimensional optical scanning