IADR Abstract Archives
Implant Angulation And Accuracy of Implant Impressions
Objectives: The knowledge of the impact of the implant angulation on the accuracy of an implant impression is rare. Therefore the aim of this study was to analyze this factor in a model of an upper-jaw with implant system and impression tray type as covariates.
Methods: To simulate the clinical situation a master-model of an upper-jaw with implants in angulated positions: group I (first-premolar-15°vestibular), group II (first-molars-0°), group III (third-molar-20°mesial) was fabricated. To investigate two implant systems in this study Bego-RI-Implants [BI] were placed on the right side and Camlog-Conelog-Screw-Line-Implants [CI] on the left side of the model. Impressions were taken with two impression-trays: custom-made [CT], stock-tray (Miratray-Hager&Werken) [ST]. With the stock-tray two impression procedures were performed. In one group the impression posts were left unsplinted and the other group the implant posts were splinted prior to the impression. Overall 10 impressions per group were taken under laboratory conditions (21°±1°C, humidity 55-57%) with a Polyether (Impregum-Penta, 3M) [IMP] and a pvs-material (Fexitime-Monophase, Heraeus-Kulzer) [PVS] totaling in 60 impressions. Impressions were poured with Type-IV-plaster (Fuijrock-EP, GC). After 7 day storage the implant position was assessed with a 3D-coordinate-measuring-machine and deviations from the master regarding the inclination of the implant axis and its rotation were analyzed. As the data were not normally distributed non-parametric statistical procedures (Kruskal-Wallis-Test/Mann-Whitney-U-Test) were applied.
Results: The following deviations from the master were observed: Inclination: group I: -0.22°[BI,CT,IMP] to 0.40°[CI,ST,IMP]; group II: 0.06°[CI,CT,IMP] to 0.09°[BI,CT,IMP]; group III: -0.07°[BI,ST,PVS] to 0.09°[CI,CT,IMP]. Implant axis rotation: group I: -0.07°[BI,ST,PVS ] to 0.43°[CI,CT,IMP]; group II:-1.68°[CI,ST,IMP] to 0.53°[BI,ST,VPS]; group III: 0.03°[BI,CT,IMP] to 1.17°[CI,ST,IMP]. Inclination and splinting had a significant impact (p<0.05) on the accuracy.
Conclusions: Within the limits of this study it can be concluded that the inclination of the implants is a crucial factor regarding to the accuracy. Splinting slightly improved the accuracy.
Methods: To simulate the clinical situation a master-model of an upper-jaw with implants in angulated positions: group I (first-premolar-15°vestibular), group II (first-molars-0°), group III (third-molar-20°mesial) was fabricated. To investigate two implant systems in this study Bego-RI-Implants [BI] were placed on the right side and Camlog-Conelog-Screw-Line-Implants [CI] on the left side of the model. Impressions were taken with two impression-trays: custom-made [CT], stock-tray (Miratray-Hager&Werken) [ST]. With the stock-tray two impression procedures were performed. In one group the impression posts were left unsplinted and the other group the implant posts were splinted prior to the impression. Overall 10 impressions per group were taken under laboratory conditions (21°±1°C, humidity 55-57%) with a Polyether (Impregum-Penta, 3M) [IMP] and a pvs-material (Fexitime-Monophase, Heraeus-Kulzer) [PVS] totaling in 60 impressions. Impressions were poured with Type-IV-plaster (Fuijrock-EP, GC). After 7 day storage the implant position was assessed with a 3D-coordinate-measuring-machine and deviations from the master regarding the inclination of the implant axis and its rotation were analyzed. As the data were not normally distributed non-parametric statistical procedures (Kruskal-Wallis-Test/Mann-Whitney-U-Test) were applied.
Results: The following deviations from the master were observed: Inclination: group I: -0.22°[BI,CT,IMP] to 0.40°[CI,ST,IMP]; group II: 0.06°[CI,CT,IMP] to 0.09°[BI,CT,IMP]; group III: -0.07°[BI,ST,PVS] to 0.09°[CI,CT,IMP]. Implant axis rotation: group I: -0.07°[BI,ST,PVS ] to 0.43°[CI,CT,IMP]; group II:-1.68°[CI,ST,IMP] to 0.53°[BI,ST,VPS]; group III: 0.03°[BI,CT,IMP] to 1.17°[CI,ST,IMP]. Inclination and splinting had a significant impact (p<0.05) on the accuracy.
Conclusions: Within the limits of this study it can be concluded that the inclination of the implants is a crucial factor regarding to the accuracy. Splinting slightly improved the accuracy.