A comparative evaluation of accuracy of three impression techniques in parallel and angulated multiple implant impressions: An in vitro study

Priya Singh; Vikrant Pratap; Rajneesh Kumar; Rupali Pathak; Avinash Kamble; Anchal Srivastava

doi:10.4103/INPC.INPC_57_19

Users Online: 345

ORIGINAL ARTICLE

Year : 2020 \| Volume : 7 \| Issue : 1 \| Page : 5-7

A comparative evaluation of accuracy of three impression techniques in parallel and angulated multiple implant impressions: An in vitro study Priya Singh¹, Vikrant Pratap², Rajneesh Kumar³, Rupali Pathak⁴, Avinash Kamble⁵, Anchal Srivastava⁶ ¹ Private Practitioner, Department of Prosthodontics, Vikrant's Dental and Dentofacial Center, Patna, Bihar, India ² Private Practitioner, Department of Oral Surgery, Vikrant's Dental and Dentofacial Center, Patna, Bihar, India ³ Private Practitioner, Department of Prosthodontics, Dr Rajneesh' Dental Implant And Esthetic Center, Rohini, Delhi, India ⁴ Visiting Consultant, Department of Prosthodontics, Gdc, Aurangabad, Maharashtra, India ⁵ Assitant Professor, Department of Prosthodontics, Gdc, Aurangabad, Maharashtra, India ⁶ Tutor, Department of Oral Pathology, Dr Anchal's Classes For Pg Preparation, Aurangabad, Maharashtra, India Correspondence Address: Rajneesh Kumar Dr Rajneesh Dental Clinic and Implant Center, Plot No 238, Ground Floor, Pocket 8, Sector 24, Rohini, New Delhi India Source of Support: None, Conflict of Interest: None DOI: 10.4103/INPC.INPC_57_19

Introduction: Dental implants have become the treatment of choice in many situations where missing teeth require functional and esthetic replacements. The present study was conducted to evaluate and compare the accuracy of multiple implant impressions using different impression techniques such as open tray nonsplinted, open tray splinted, and closed tray in both parallel as well as angulated implants. Materials and Methods: Two acrylic models were fabricated with four implant analogs placed in each model. Three impression groups, Group 1 (open-tray nonsplinted technique), Group 2 (open -tray splinted technique), and Group 3 (closed tray technique) were formed for each model. The post hoc Tukey's test was used for multiple comparisons. Results: The results show that Group 3 is least accurate after that, Group 1 and Group 2 are most accurate techniques for impression making. Conclusions: These results indicate that the open-tray (pickup) impression technique is more accurate as compared to the closed tray (reposition) technique in both Model A (parallel analogs) and Model B (angulated analogs).



[FULL TEXT] [PDF]*

Table of Contents

Similar in PUBMED

Search Pubmed for

Search in Google Scholar for

Related articles

Citation Manager

Access Statistics

Reader Comments

Email Alert *

Add to My List *

* Requires registration (Free)

Article Access Statistics
Viewed	1043
Printed	91
Emailed	0
PDF Downloaded	144
Comments	[Add]