An unconventional impression method using implant mount: an alternative to open- and closed-tray impression technique
Article Sidebar
Downloads
Metrics
Main Article Content
Abstract
Background: Various impression techniques have been proposed for making implant prostheses. Impressions are made at implant level – closed and open tray impressions, as well as abutment level impressions. Closed and open tray copings are used to make the impressions. The limitations associated with the implant impression copings, including expensive ones, pose a significant challenge in limited mouth-opening cases, and customization of copings is not feasible.
Aim: This study aimed to compare the dimensional accuracy of four impression methods, open-tray, closed-tray, disposable mount as coping and splinted mount as coping.
Materials and methods: An ideal maxillary edentulous acrylic model was used with windows created at the canine and molar regions. Four analogues were implanted in the canine and molar areas to represent implants. The analogues were parallel to one other and were orientated at 0 degrees using the surveyor's assistance. Four groups were made: closed-tray, open-tray, implant mount as coping and splinted mount as coping. The custom trays were fabricated, accordingly. The implant-level impressions were made in all the groups using polyether impression material. The impressions were fitted with their respective impression copings with the analogues. The impressions were poured using die stone type-IV, and the casts were made. The resulting casts were 3D scanned, and a virtual model (.stl File) was created. Each .stl file was subjected to Geomagic software to evaluate the three-dimensional accuracy of conventional implant copings and implant mount as copings.
Results: The Open-tray and the closed-tray groups exhibited the mean dimensional accuracy of 0.011±0.0016 µm and 0.018±0.0012 µm, respectively. The mount as coping and splinted mount displayed a mean dimensional accuracy of 0.017±0.0008 µm and 0.013±0.0020µm, respectively.
Conclusions: This pilot study concludes that the implant mount can be used as implant impression coping and an alternative to the conventional impression coping.
Article Details
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
References
- Papazian S, Morgano SM. Four uses of a disposable implant mount. J Prosthet Dent. 1998 Feb 1;79(2):222-5. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0022-3913(98)70220-3
- Dhanda A, Kalra T, Kumar M, Bansal A, Sharma R. Implant Impression Making: Take-Off Guide for Beginners. Dent J Adv Stud. 2021 Dec;9(03):121-7. https://doi.org/10.1055/s-0041-1736489
- Tafti AF, Hatami M, Razavi F, Ebadian B. Comparison of the accuracy of open-tray and Snap-On impression techniques of implants with different angulations. Dent Res J. 2019 Nov;16(6):413. https://doi.org/10.4103/1735-3327.270785
- Hariharan R, Shankar C, Rajan M, Baig MR, Azhagarasan NS. Evaluation of accuracy of multiple dental implant impressions using various splinting materials. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2010 Jan 1;25(1):38-44.
- Osman MS, Ziada HM, Abubakr NH, Suliman AM. Implant impression accuracy of parallel and non-parallel implants: a comparative in-vitro analysis of open and closed tray techniques. Int J Implant Dent. 2019 Dec;5:1-0. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40729-019-0159-5
- Izadi A, Heidari B, Roshanaei G, Allahbakhshi H, Fotovat F. Comparative study of dimensional accuracy in three dental implant impression techniques: open tray, closed tray with impression coping, and snap cap. J Contemp Dent Pract. 2018 Aug 1;19(8):974-81. https://doi.org/10.5005/jp-journals-10024-2368
- Balouch F, Jalalian E, Nikkheslat M, Ghavamian R, Toopchi S, Jallalian F, Jalalian S. Comparison of dimensional accuracy between open-tray and closed-tray implant impression technique in 15 angled implants. J Dent. 2013 Sep;14(3):96.
- Mahoorkar S, Jain A, Cauvery K, Kumar P, Havale R. Modification of fixture mount to be used as an impression coping in closely placed implants. J Clin Diagnos Res. 2014 Apr;8(4):ZD08.
- Chang GH, Tian C, Hung YS. Redesign of a fixture mount to be used as an impression coping and a provisional abutment as well. Contemp Clin Dent. 2011 Jul;2(3):194. https://doi.org/10.4103/0976-237X.86456
- Arieli A, Adawi M, Masri M, Weinberg E, Beitlitum I, Pilo R, Levartovsky S. The Accuracy of Open-Tray vs. Snap on Impression Techniques in A 6-Implant Model: An In Vitro 3D Study. Mater. 2022 Mar 12;15(6):2103. https://doi.org/10.3390/ma15062103
- Kalpana D, Smitha Sharan D, Sreeharsha TV, Pradeep Chandra K, Brunda K, Nadira Jabeen S. A review on dental implant impressions. Int J Appl Dent Sci. 2019 Jan;5(1):33-6.
- Mizumoto RM, Yilmaz B. Intraoral scan bodies in implant dentistry: A systematic review. J Prosthet Dent. 2018 Sep 1;120(3):343-52. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.prosdent.2017.10.029
- Deogade SC, Dube G. A sectional-splinting technique for impressing multiple implant units by eliminating the use of an open tray. Contemp Clin Dent. 2014 Apr;5(2):221. https://doi.org/10.4103/0976-237X.132347