ABSTRACT
Purpose@#The purpose of this study was to compare the accuracy of impression taking method using the encoded healing abutment, scan body and pick-up impression coping with different implant angulations. @*Materials and Methods@#Master model was fabricated by 3D printer and three implants were placed into the model with 0°, 10° and 20° mesial angulation. The abutments were secured to each implants and master model was scanned to make a reference model. Group P model was fabricated using pick-up impression copings and model was scanned after securing the abutments. Encoded healing abutment (Group E) and scan body (Group S) were secured on the master model and digital impression was taken using intraoral scanner 15 times each. Each STL files of test groups were superimposed with reference model using best fit alignment and root mean square (RMS) value was analyzed. @*Results@#The RMS values were lowest in Group P, followed by Group S and Group E. Group P showed significant difference with Group S and E (P< 0.05) while there was no significant difference between Group S and E. Correlation between implant angulation and RMS value was significant in Group E (P < 0.05). @*Conclusion@#The pick-up impression coping method showed higher accuracy and there was no significant difference in accuracy between the healing abutment and the scan body. The clinical use of the encoded healing abutment is possible, but it should be used with caution in the case of angulated implant.
ABSTRACT
Purpose@#The purpose of this study was to compare the accuracy of impression taking method using the encoded healing abutment, scan body and pick-up impression coping with different implant angulations. @*Materials and Methods@#Master model was fabricated by 3D printer and three implants were placed into the model with 0°, 10° and 20° mesial angulation. The abutments were secured to each implants and master model was scanned to make a reference model. Group P model was fabricated using pick-up impression copings and model was scanned after securing the abutments. Encoded healing abutment (Group E) and scan body (Group S) were secured on the master model and digital impression was taken using intraoral scanner 15 times each. Each STL files of test groups were superimposed with reference model using best fit alignment and root mean square (RMS) value was analyzed. @*Results@#The RMS values were lowest in Group P, followed by Group S and Group E. Group P showed significant difference with Group S and E (P< 0.05) while there was no significant difference between Group S and E. Correlation between implant angulation and RMS value was significant in Group E (P < 0.05). @*Conclusion@#The pick-up impression coping method showed higher accuracy and there was no significant difference in accuracy between the healing abutment and the scan body. The clinical use of the encoded healing abutment is possible, but it should be used with caution in the case of angulated implant.
ABSTRACT
The patient who has severely absorbed residual ridges, treatments are challenging to satisfy many factors: support, retention, stability, etc. The neutral zone or monoplane occlusion with non-anatomical tooth would be helpful to get additional retention and stability. The monoplane occlusion has been used long time because it can eliminate horizontal forces and many other advantages. The lingualized occlusion was introduced to improve chewing efficiency and esthetics. But from a stability aspect, it seems controversy between monoplane occlusion and lingualized occlusion. This case report shows the results of the treat two flat residual ridge patients using functional impression; piezography, and made 2 other dentures with monoplane and lingualized occlusion that patient can select denture.