Comparison of the accuracy of plastic and metal stock trays for implant impressions.

PURPOSE: This in vitro study evaluated the dimensional accuracy of two impression techniques (tapered and splinted) with two stock trays (plastic and metal) for implant-supported prostheses. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A master cast with four parallel abutment analogs and a passive framework were fabricated. Polyvinyl siloxane impression material was used for all impressions with two metal stock trays and two plastic stock trays (closed and open trays). Four groups (tapered plastic, splinted plastic, tapered metal, and splinted metal) and a control group (master cast) were tested (n = 5 for each group). After the framework was seated on each of the casts, one abutment screw was tightened, and the marginal gap between the abutment and framework on the other side was measured with a stereomicroscope. The measurements were analyzed with the Kruskal-Wallis one-way analysis of variance on ranks test followed by the Dunn method. RESULTS: The mean values (± standard deviations) for the abutment/framework interface gaps were: master cast, 32 ± 2 Μm; tapered metal, 44 ± 10 Μm; splinted metal, 69 ± 28 Μm; tapered plastic, 164 ± 58 Μm; splinted plastic, 128 ± 47 Μm. No significant difference was detected between the master cast, tapered metal, and splinted metal groups or between the tapered and splinted plastic groups. CONCLUSIONS: In this study, the rigidity of the metal stock tray ensured better results than the plastic stock tray for implant impressions with a high-viscosity impression material (putty). Statistically similar results were obtained using tapered impression copings and splinted squared impression copings. The tapered impression copings technique and splinted squared impression copings technique with a metal stock tray produced precise casts with no statistically significant difference in interface gaps compared to the master cast.

Comparison of impression techniques and materials for an implant-supported prosthesis.

PURPOSE: To investigate, in vitro, the dimensional accuracy of two impression techniques (squared impression copings and squared impression copings sandblasted and coated with impression adhesive) made of vinyl polysiloxane and polyether impression materials. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A master cast (control group) with four parallel implant abutment analogs, a passive framework, and a custom aluminum tray was fabricated. Four groups (n = 5 each group) were tested: squared Impregum (SI), squared Express (SE), sandblasted adhesive squared Impregum (ASI), and sandblasted adhesive squared Express (ASE). The measurement method employed was just one titanium screw tightened to the framework. A stereomicroscope was used to evaluate the fit of the framework by measuring the size of the gap between the abutment and the framework. The results were analyzed statistically. RESULTS: The mean values for the abutment/framework interface gaps were: master cast, 31.63 µm (SD 2.16); SI, 38.03 µm (SD 9.29); ASI, 46.80 µm (SD 8.47); SE, 151.21 µm (SD 22.79); and ASE, 136.59 µm (SD 29.80). No significant difference was detected between the SI or ASI techniques and the master cast. No significant difference was detected between the SE and ASE techniques. CONCLUSION: Within the limitations of this study, it can be concluded that Impregum Soft medium consistency was the best impression material and the impression technique did not influence the accuracy of the stone casts.

Análise comparativa de técnicas de moldagem para próteses implantossuportadas / Comparative analysis of impression techniques for implant-supported prosthesis

A proposta deste estudo in vitro foi avaliar 3 técnicas de moldagem (Cônico, Hélice e Unido com barra) para próteses implantossuportadas. Materiais e métodos: Um modelo mandibular em latão contendo 4 análogos de implantes e uma estrutura metálica foram confeccionados. Foram utilizados 2 materiais de moldagem: Silicona de polimerização por adição (Express STD, 3M ESPE) e Silicona de polimerização por condensação (Zetaplus/Oranwash, Zermack). Seis grupos foram formados pela combinação entre cada material e técnica de moldagem. Um total de 30 modelos foram fabricados (5 modelos por grupo) e 120 valores de fendas foram analisados (1 valor de fenda para cada análogo de implante). Resultados: Para o material Express, os valores médios de fenda foram: 164,40 μm (Cônico), 97,90 μm (Hélice) e 127,79 μm (Unido). Para o material Zetaplus/Oranwash, os valores médios de fenda foram: 219,37 μm (Cônico), 118,57 μm (Hélice) e 78,50 μm (Unido). Houve uma diferença estatística significante entre o Cônico e a Hélice para o material Express (p<.05). Quando o material avaliado foi o Zetaplus/Oranwash, todos os grupos foram diferentes estatisticamente entre si (p<.05). Conclusões: Os melhores resultados foram alcançados para a Hélice e para Unido quando o material avaliado foi o Express. Para o Zetaplus/Oranwash, a melhor técnica foi o Unido, seguida da Hélice e do Cônico.

The purpose of this in vitro study was to evaluate 3 impression techniques (tapered impression copings, squared modified impression copings, and squared impression copings splinted with bur and acrylic resin) for implant-supported prosthesis. Materials and Methods: A mandibular brass cast with 4 stainless steel implant-abutments analogs and a framework were fabricated. Addition silicone – Express – and condensation silicone – Zetaplus/Oranwash - impression materials were tested. Six groups were formed by combining each material and impression technique. Five casts were made per group for a total of 30 casts and 120 gap values (1 gap value for each implant-abutment analog). Results: With the Express impression material, the mean gap values were 164.40 μm for the tapered group, 97.90 μm for squared modified group and 127.79 μm for squared splinted group. With the Zetaplus/Oranwash impression materials, the mean gap values were 219.37 μm for the tapered group, 118.57 μm for squared modified group and 78.50 μm for squared splinted group. There was significantly difference between tapered impression technique and squared modified impression technique (P<.05), when the material was Express. When the material was the condensation silicone, all groups had significantly difference among themselves (P<.05). Conclusions: The best results were achieved for squared modified impression technique and squared splinted impression techniques, when the impression material was Express. For condensation silicone, the best technique was squared splinted group, followed by squared modified group, and tapered group.

Procera Allceram: uma alternativa estética atual / Procera Allceram: an atual esthetics alternative

O desejo dos profissionais em buscar melhores soluções protéticas, bem como os anseios dos pacientes por reabilitações com excelência estética, têm motivado inúmeros esforços nos últimos anos para o aperfeiçoamento tecnológico e biomecâncio dos materiais restauradores. Dessa forma, o uso da alumina na Odontologia tem colaborado para a resolução dos problemas estéticos, uma vez que a criação de uma infra-estrutura não-metálica, obtida a partir da sinterização do óxido de alumínio, permite a confecção de próteses mais próximas aos dentes naturais sem detrimento do fator resistência mecânica. Este artigo relata dois casos clínicos onde houve o restabelecimento dos elementos dentários utilizando-se coroas livres de metal (Procera Allceram) em áreas de excelência estética.