The 3-dimensional spatial orientation of intra-oral location of implant fixtures cannot be transferred to the working cast due to movement of impression copings within the impression materials. As a result, an accurate and passive operation is necessary for the long-term success of the implant.
The aim of this in vitro analysis was to see how accurate the master
cast was using various splinting and impression materials.
Methodology: A reference
mandibular model was created with four internal attachment implants. Using
autoplymerizing resin, 36 custom trays were made. The impression material used
was polyether and poly vinyl siloxane. The trays were divided into two groups
at random, with eighteen trays in each group. Two types of impression
techniques were identified: Group I: Open tray impression copings splinted with
auto polymerizing acrylic resin in a direct impression technique (GC pattern
resin). Community II: Direct impression technique with open tray impression
copings splinted with syringable temporization content Pro-temp TM 4 (bis-GMA).
As a result, final impressions were created. Using a profile projector, master
casts were created and evaluated. These results were compared to those obtained
using the reference mandibular model, which was used as a control. A one-way
analysis of variance (a=.00) was used to analyse the data, followed by a post
hoc Tukey's test (a=.00).
The ANOVA test and the post-hoc test were used to make statistical comparisons.
With resin splinted and bis-GMA splinted impression copings, the same amount of
deviation values were obtained. When Polyether and poly vinyl siloxane were
used as impression materials, there was a major difference in.
Conclusion: The master cast produced using both splinting materials was
identical to the reference model. Polyether performed better in the direct
technique in terms of precision. Using both of the impression materials used in
the analysis, splinting increased the accuracy of transfer in multiple
abutments. Both splinting materials deviated from the reference model in a
similar amount, so either one can be selected based on ease of handling, time
consumption, technique sensitivity, and availability.
Pragya Bali
Prosthodontist, Civil Hospital Sundernagar, Himachal Pradesh, India.
Farhat Jabeen
Prosthodontist, Senior Resident, Institute of Dental Science Seorah, Jammu, India.
Poonam Pathania
Luxmi Bai Dental College, Patiala, India.
Harsh Bali
SMO Government Hospital Sundernagar, India.
Shivangi Bali
MCM-DAV College, Chandigarh, India.
View Book :- https://stm.bookpi.org/NICST-V10/article/view/593
No comments:
Post a Comment