Accuracy of a self-perforating impression tray for dental implants

Marotti, Juliana; Tortamano, Pedro; Castilho, Tatiana Regina Ramos Nantes de; Steagall, Washington; Wolfart, Stefan; Haselhuhn, Klaus

doi:10.1016/j.prosdent.2014.02.012

Cited by 11 publications

(26 citation statements)

References 15 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Conventional implant impressions were performed with the open tray method (Akalin et al., ; Aldosari, ; Aldosari et al., ; Amin et al., ; de Avila, de Matos Moraes, Castanharo, Del'Acqua, & de Assis Mollo, ; Bergin et al., ; Beyabanaki, Shamshiri, Alikhasi, & Monzavi, ; Buzayan, Baig, & Yunus, ; Di Fiore et al., ; Ehsani et al., ; Geramipanah, Sahebi, Davari, Hajimahmoudi, & Rakhshan, ; Ghahremanloo et al., ; Ghanem, Nassani, Baroudi, & Abdel Fattah, ; Gupta et al., ; Heidari et al., ; Lin et al., ; Marotti et al., ; Ongül et al., ; Ono et al., ; Papaspyridakos et al., ; Perez‐Davidi et al., ; Pozzi et al., ; Pujari, Garg, & Prithviraj, ; Selvaraj, Dorairaj, Mohan & Simon, ; Vigolo, Mutinelli, Fonzi & Stellini, ; Vojdani, Torabi, & Ansarifard, ; Zen et al., ), the closed tray method (Abdel‐Azim et al., ; Calesini et al., ; Del'acqua, de Avila, Amaral, Pinelli, & de Assis Mollo, ; Gökçen‐Rohlig et al., ; Ibrahim, Fouad, Elewa, & Mustafa, ; Ibrahim & Ghuneim, ; Karl et al., ; Lee et al., ; Reddy, Prasad, Vakil, Jain, & Chowdhary, ) or both the open and closed tray methods for comparison of the accuracy (Al Quran et al., ; Alikhasi, Siadat, Beyabanaki, & Kharazifard, ; Alikhasi, Siadat, & Rahimian, ; de Avila, Barros, Del'Acqua, Castanharo, & Mollo Fde, ; BalaMurugan & Manimaran, ; Chang, Vahidi, Bae, & Lim, ; Haghi, Shiehzadeh, Nakhaei, Ahrary, & Sabzevari, ; Hazboun, ; Howell et al., ; Karl & Palarie, ; Mpikos et al., ; Nakhaei, Madani, Moraditalab, & Haghi, ; Ng et al., ; Pera et al., ; Rutkunas, Sveikata, & Savickas, ; Sabouhi et al., , ; ...…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Impression materials were polyvinylsiloxane, vinylsiloxanether, polyether or condensation silicone. Polyvinylsiloxane materials were used in 26 studies (Abdel‐Azim et al., ; Al‐Abdullah, Zandparsa, Finkelman, & Hirayama, ; Alikhasi, Siadat, Beyabanaki et al., ; Alikhasi, Siadat, & Rahimian, ; de Avila et al., , ; BalaMurugan & Manimaran, ; Beyabanaki et al., ; Calesini et al., ; Del'acqua et al., ; Di Fiore et al., ; Ehsani et al., ; Geramipanah et al., ; Ghahremanloo et al., ; Heidari et al., ; Howell et al., ; Ibrahim et al., ; Lee et al., ; Lin et al., ; Marotti et al., ; Nakhaei et al., ; Ono et al., ; Pozzi et al., ; Sabouhi et al., ; Shim et al., ; Siadat et al., ; Zen et al., ), whereas polyether was used in 22 studies (Al Quran et al., ; Aldosari, ; Aldosari et al., ; Alikhasi, Bassir, & Naini, ; Amin et al., ; Ghanem et al., ; Hazboun, ; Ibrahim & Ghuneim, ; Karl et al., ; Martínez‐Rus et al., ; Mpikos et al., ; Ng et al., ; Ongül et al., ; Papaspyridakos et al., ; Pera et al., ; Perez‐Davidi et al., ; Rashidan, Alikhasi, Samadizadeh, Beyabanaki, & Kharazifard, ; Selvaraj et al., ; Stimmelmayr, Erdelt et al., ; Stimmelmayr, Güth et al., ; Tarib et al., ; Tsagkalidis et al., ; Vigolo et al., ), and vinylsiloxanether and condensation silicone were each used in one study (Eliasson & Ortorp, ). Sixteen studies compared any combination of the aforementioned impression materials (Akalin et al., ; Alikhasi, Siadat, Beyabanaki et al., ; Alikhasi, Siadat, & Rahimian, ; Buzayan et al., ; Chang et al., …”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

The accuracy of different dental impression techniques for implant‐supported dental prostheses: A systematic review and meta‐analysis

Flügge

Meer

Gimenez-Gonzalez

et al. 2018

Clinical Oral Implants Res

153

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Aim: This systematic review and meta-analysis were conducted to assess and compare the accuracy of conventional and digital implant impressions. The review was registered on the PROSPERO register (registration number: CRD42016050730). Material and Methods:A systematic literature search was conducted adhering to PRISMA guidelines to identify studies on implant impressions published between 2012 and 2017. Experimental and clinical studies at all levels of evidence published in peer-reviewed journals were included, excluding expert opinions. Data extraction was performed along defined parameters for studied specimens, digital and conventional impression specifications and outcome assessment. Results: Seventy-nine studies were included for the systematic review, thereof 77 experimental studies, one RCT and one retrospective study. The study setting was in vitro for most of the included studies (75 studies) and in vivo for four studies. Accuracy of conventional impressions was examined in 59 studies, whereas digital impressions were examined in 11 studies. Nine studies compared the accuracy of conventional and digital implant impressions. Reported measurements for the accuracy include the following: (a) linear and angular deviations between reference models and test models fabricated with each impression technique; (b) threedimensional deviations between impression posts and scan bodies respectively; and (c) fit of implant-supported frameworks, assessed by measuring marginal discrepancy along implant abutments.) Meta-analysis was performed of 62 studies. The results of conventional and digital implant impressions exhibited high values for heterogeneity. Conclusions: The available data for accuracy of digital and conventional implant impressions have a low evidence level and do not include sufficient data on in vivo application to derive clinical recommendations. K E Y W O R D S computer-aided design, digital implant impressions, implant impressions, intraoral scanningThis is an open access article under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial License, which permits use, distribution and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited and is not used for commercial purposes.

show abstract

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

The accuracy of different dental impression techniques for implant‐supported dental prostheses: A systematic review and meta‐analysis

Flügge

Meer

Gimenez-Gonzalez

et al. 2018

Clinical Oral Implants Res

153

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…These findings are consistent with previous studies. The same tray was previously evaluated by Marotti et al, who found less accuracy of the self-perforating tray when evaluating the gap obtained by impressions taken in the mandibular arch 15. In addition, Damodara et al reported that custom trays are more accurate than stock trays 16.…”

mentioning

confidence: 83%

“…Subsequently, the entire set was repositioned in the perforations and the implants were fixed to the master model with acrylic resin. 15…”

Section: Sample Preparationmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Accuracy of self-perforating impression tray for maxillary dental implant

Bohner¹,

Marques²,

Keedi³

et al. 2018

Clin Lab Res Dent

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

| Objectives: To analyze the accuracy of a pre-fabricated self-perforating tray for implant impression in an edentulous maxilla. Methods: Four implants (13,16,23, 26) were placed in an acrylic resin model of an edentulous maxilla. Implant impressions (n = 7) were taken using a customized open tray (Control Group) and a pre-fabricated selfperforating tray (Test Group). A metal bar was fabricated and screw-retained on implant 13 and the vestibular gap between the framework and implants was measured by stereomicroscopy on implants 16, 23, and 26. Data were analyzed by ANOVA repeated measures and Tukey tests with a significance level (α) of 0.05. Results: There was no statistical difference between self-perforating and customized open tray groups. Control group showed a gap of 73.31± 26.01 for I1; 149.16± 53.90 for I2; and 115.46± 73.34 for I3. Whereas Test Group showed a gap of 154.41± 74.64 for I1; 159.45± 87.64 for I2; and 109.28± 49.18 for I3. Conclusion: The pre-fabricated self-perforating and custom trays showed a similar accuracy for implant impression of edentulous maxilla. DESCRIPTORS | Impression Technique; Dental Implants; Dimensional Measurement Accuracy. RESUMO | Precisão de moldeira autoperfurante para impressão de implante dentário maxilar • Objetivos: Analisar a precisão de uma moldeira autoperfurante de impressão pré-fabricada para implantes na maxila edêntula. Métodos: Quatro implantes (13,16,23, 26) foram colocados em um modelo de resina acrílica de uma maxila edêntula. As impressões dos implantes (n = 7) foram tiradas com uma moldeira aberta customizada (Grupo Controle) e uma moldeira autoperfurante pré-fabricada (Grupo Teste). Uma barra de metal foi fabricada e aparafusada no implante 13, e o gap vestibular entre a estrutura e os implantes foi medido por estereomicroscopia nos implantes 16, 23 e 26. Os dados foram analisados por Anova de medidas repetidas e teste de Tukey, com um nível de significância (α) de 0,05. Resultados: Não houve diferença estatística entre os grupos de moldeiras, tanto autoperfurante quanto aberta customizada. O grupo controle apresentou gaps de 73,31 ± 26,01 para I1; 149,16 ± 53,90 no I2; e 115,46 ± 73,34 para o I3. Ao passo que o Grupo Teste apresentou gaps de 154,41 ± 74,64 no I1; 159,45 ± 87,64 no I2; e 109,28 ± 49,18 para o I3. Conclusão: A moldeira autoperfurante pré-fabricada e a moldeira customizada apresentaram precisão similar na impressão de implantes da maxila edêntula.

show abstract