Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
Conventional and Digital Impressions for Fabrication of Complete Implant-Supported Bars: A Comparative In Vitro Study.
Vieira, Samanta N V; Lourenço, Matheus F; Pereira, Rodrigo C; França, Esdras C; Vilaça, Ênio L; Silveira, Rodrigo R; Silva, Guilherme C.
Affiliation
  • Vieira SNV; Department of Restorative Dentistry, School of Dentistry, Universidade Federal de Minas Gerais, Belo Horizonte 31270-901, MG, Brazil.
  • Lourenço MF; Private Practice, Belo Horizonte 30130-007, MG, Brazil.
  • Pereira RC; Universo, Belo Horizonte 31140-320, MG, Brazil.
  • França EC; Department of Restorative Dentistry, School of Dentistry, Universidade Federal de Minas Gerais, Belo Horizonte 31270-901, MG, Brazil.
  • Vilaça ÊL; Department of Restorative Dentistry, School of Dentistry, Universidade Federal de Minas Gerais, Belo Horizonte 31270-901, MG, Brazil.
  • Silveira RR; Department of Restorative Dentistry, School of Dentistry, Universidade Federal de Minas Gerais, Belo Horizonte 31270-901, MG, Brazil.
  • Silva GC; Department of Restorative Dentistry, School of Dentistry, Universidade Federal de Minas Gerais, Belo Horizonte 31270-901, MG, Brazil.
Materials (Basel) ; 16(11)2023 Jun 04.
Article in En | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-37297310
Obtaining accurate models and well-fitting prostheses during the fabrication of complete implant-supported prostheses has been a significant challenge. Conventional impression methods involve multiple clinical and laboratory steps that can lead to distortions, potentially resulting in inaccurate prostheses. In contrast, digital impressions may eliminate some of these steps, leading to better-fitting prostheses. Therefore, it is important to compare conventional and digital impressions for producing implant-supported prostheses. This study aimed to compare the quality of digital intraoral and conventional impressions by measuring the vertical misfit of implant-supported complete bars obtained using both types of techniques. Five digital impressions using an intraoral scanner and five impressions using elastomer were made in a four-implant master model. The plaster models produced with conventional impressions were scanned in a laboratory scanner to obtain virtual models. Screw-retained bars (n = five) were designed on the models and milled in zirconia. The bars fabricated using digital (DI) and conventional (CI) impressions were screwed to the master model, initially with one screw (DI1 and CI1) and later with four screws (DI4 and CI4), and were analyzed under a SEM to measure the misfit. ANOVA was used to compare the results (p < 0.05). There were no statistically significant differences in the misfit between the bars fabricated using digital and conventional impressions when screwed with one (DI1 = 94.45 µm vs. CI1 = 101.90 µm: F = 0.096; p = 0.761) or four screws (DI4 = 59.43 µm vs. CI4 = 75.62 µm: F = 2.655; p = 0.139). Further, there were no differences when the bars were compared within the same group screwed with one or four screws (DI1 = 94.45 µm vs. DI4 = 59.43 µm: F = 2.926; p = 0.123; CI1 = 101.90 µm vs. CI4 = 75.62 µm: F = 0.013; p = 0.907). It was concluded that both impression techniques produced bars with a satisfactory fit, regardless of whether they were screwed with one or four screws.
Key words

Full text: 1 Collection: 01-internacional Database: MEDLINE Language: En Journal: Materials (Basel) Year: 2023 Document type: Article Affiliation country: Brazil Country of publication: Switzerland

Full text: 1 Collection: 01-internacional Database: MEDLINE Language: En Journal: Materials (Basel) Year: 2023 Document type: Article Affiliation country: Brazil Country of publication: Switzerland