Premium
In Vitro Implant Impression Accuracy Using a New Photopolymerizing SDR Splinting Material
Author(s) -
Di Fiore Adolfo,
Meneghello Roberto,
Savio Gianpaolo,
Sivolella Stefano,
Katsoulis Joannis,
Stellini Edoardo
Publication year - 2015
Publication title -
clinical implant dentistry and related research
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 1.338
H-Index - 85
eISSN - 1708-8208
pISSN - 1523-0899
DOI - 10.1111/cid.12321
Subject(s) - impression , wilcoxon signed rank test , dentistry , dental floss , dental implant , universal testing machine , implant , acrylic resin , orthodontics , computer science , materials science , biomedical engineering , mathematics , medicine , composite material , mann–whitney u test , surgery , ultimate tensile strength , statistics , world wide web , coating
Abstract Purpose The study aims to evaluate three‐dimensionally (3 D ) the accuracy of implant impressions using a new resin splinting material, “Smart Dentin Replacement” ( SDR ). Materials and Methods A titanium model of an edentulous mandible with six implant analogues was used as a master model and its dimensions measured with a coordinate measuring machine. Before the total 60 impressions were taken (open tray, screw‐retained abutments, vinyl polysiloxane), they were divided in four groups: A (test): copings pick‐up splinted with dental floss and fotopolymerizing SDR ; B (test): see A, additionally sectioned and splinted again with SDR ; C (control): copings pick‐up splinted with dental floss and autopolymerizing Duralay® (Reliance Dental Mfg. Co., Alsip, IL, USA) acrylic resin; and D (control): see C , additionally sectioned and splinted again with Duralay. The impressions were measured directly with an optomechanical coordinate measuring machine and analyzed with a computer‐aided design ( CAD ) geometric modeling software. The Wilcoxon matched‐pair signed‐rank test was used to compare groups. Results While there was no difference ( p = .430) between the mean 3 D deviations of the test groups A (17.5 μm) and B (17.4 μm), they both showed statistically significant differences ( p < .003) compared with both control groups ( C 25.0 μm, D 19.1 μm). Conclusions Conventional impression techniques for edentulous jaws with multiple implants are highly accurate using the new fotopolymerizing splinting material SDR . Sectioning and rejoining of the SDR splinting had no impact on the impression accuracy.