Evaluation of Implant Impression Accuracy Using Different Trays and Techniques with a 3D Superimposition Method

• Autores: Gokce Soganci Unsal, Alper Çaglar, Magda Tura Poma, Metin Orhan, Özer Alkan
• Localización: The International Journal of Oral & Maxillofacial Implants, ISSN-e 0882-2786, Vol. 39, Nº. 4, 2024, págs. 595-602
• Idioma: inglés
• Enlaces
  • Texto completo
• Resumen

  • Purpose: To evaluate the dimensional accuracy of implant impressions obtained using five different tray types and two techniques. Materials and Methods: A partially dentate maxillary Kennedy Class II model was created as a reference model through 3D printing. Then, implant analogs 4.3 mm in diameter were placed at the first premolar, first molar, and second molar sites. Five types of trays were used to create impressions: (1) metal stock trays, (2) plastic stock trays, (3) custom trays fabricated using liquid crystal display (LCD), (4) custom trays fabricated using fused deposition modeling (FDM), and (5) custom trays fabricated using urethane dimethacrylate (UDMA) resin. Open and closed tray techniques were also compared. In total, 150 impressions were obtained. The reference model and impressions were scanned using a laboratory scanner. Additionally, the positional and angular deviations of implants with different tray types and techniques were evaluated using the superimposition method. Results: There was no statistically significant difference (P > .05) between the impression accuracy with the different tray types and impression techniques. The angular deviations with plastic and UDMA trays were greater than those with metal, FDM, and LCD trays. Angular deviation at the second molar was greater when using closed plastic trays compared to open plastic trays. The highest and lowest positional deviations were observed at the first molar implant with an open plastic tray impression (mean ± SD of 62.46 ± 28.54 mm) and a closed LCD tray impression (36.59 ± 29.93 mm). The greatest angular deviation was observed with an open FDM tray impression at the first premolar implant (0.067 ± 0.024 degree), and the lowest angular deviation was observed with a closed metal stock tray impression at the second molar implant (0.039 ± 0.025 degree). Statistical differences were detected using the Mann-Whitney U test for paired groups and the Kruskal-Wallis test for groups with more than three comparisons (P > .05). Conclusions: Plastic and metal stock trays or conventional and 3D-printed custom trays can be used to obtain implant impressions for maxillary partially edentulous arches with similar dimensional accuracy. The five tray types and two techniques may be safely used to obtain impressions of partially edentulous maxillary arches with three implants.