A comparative study on the accuracy of impression body according to the types of impression tray

Hyun-Jung Yi; Jong-Hwa Lim; Joon-Seok Lee

doi:10.4047/jkap.2010.48.1.48

Journal List > J Korean Acad Prosthodont > v.48(1) > 1034643

Go to TopGo to Top Go to BottomGo to Bottom

TOOLS

Yi, Lim, and Lee: A comparative study on the accuracy of impression body according to the types of impression tray

ORIGINAL ARTICLE

J Korean Acad Prosthodont 2010;48(1):48-54.

Published online: 18 December 2010

DOI: https://doi.org/10.4047/jkap.2010.48.1.48

A comparative study on the accuracy of impression body according to the types of impression tray

Hyun-Jung Yi, DDS, Jong-Hwa Lim, MSD, DDS, PhD, Joon-Seok Lee, MSD, DDS^∗

Department of Prosthodontics, College of Dentistry, Dankook University, Cheonan, Korea

∗Corresponding Author: Joon-Seok Lee Department of Prosthodontics, College of Dentistry, Dankook University, San 7-1, Shinboo-Dong, Cheonan, Choongnam, 330-716, Korea +82 41 550 1973: e-mail, joon322@dku.edu

Received 18 December 200914 January 2010 Accepted 15 January 2010

This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Non-Commercial License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/3.0/) which permits unrestricted non-commercial use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

Abstract

Purpose

The objective of this study was to evaluate and compare the accuracy of impression body taking by the closed and the open tray impression technique with 3 types of impression tray. Individual tray, metal stock tray and polycarbonate tray were used.

Materials and methods

Nine closed tray impressions were taken by individual tray, metal stock tray and polycarbonate stock tray, respectively with polyether impression material. 9 open tray impressions were also acquired by same manner. Precision analysis on the master models was performed by attaching the reference frameworks with alternate single screws and measuring the vertical fit discrepancy of respective analogues in working cast with a stereo microscope. Data were analyzed by 1 way ANOVA and independent t-test.

Results

The average fit accuracy of impression bodies was calculated. With the closed tray impression technique, there were significant statistical differences in vertical fit discrepancy according to the types of tray. The individual tray group showed the lowest value and the polycarbonate stock tray group represented the highest. With the open tray impression technique, there was no significant difference in vertical fit discrepancy. Significant statistical difference in vertical fit discrepancy was found between the open and the closed impression technique with the polycarbonate stock tray.

Conclusion

From the results above, more precise impressions could be acquired by the rigid individual tray compared with the polycarbonate stock tray. It was hard to get consistent accuracy impressions by the closed tray impression technique with polycarbonate stock trays. (J Korean Acad Prosthodont 2010;48:48-54)

Keywords: Dental impression technique, Implants

REFERENCES

1.Adell R., Lekholm U., Rockler B., Bra � nemark PI. A 15-year study of osseointegrated implants in the treatment of the edentulous jaw. Int J Oral Surg. 1981. 10:387–416.

2.Phillips KM., Nicholls JI., Ma T., Rubenstein J. The accuracy of three implant impression technique. A three dimensional analysis. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implant. 1994. 9:533–40.

3.Humphries RM., Yaman P., Bloem TJ. The accuracy of implant master casts constructed from transfer impressions. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 1990. 5:331–6.

4.Rangert B., Jemt T., Jo ¨rneus L. Forces and moments on Branemark implants. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 1989. 4:241–7.

5.Naconecy MM., Teixeira ER., Shinkai RS., Frasca LC., Cervieri A. Evaluation of the accuracy of 3 transfer techniques for implant-supported prostheses with multiple abutments. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2004. 19:192–8.

6.Sones AD. Complications with osseointegrated implants. J Prosthet Dent. 1989. 62:581–5.

7.Leonhardt A., Renvert S., Dahle ′n G. Microbial findings at failing implants. Clin Oral Implants Res. 1999. 10:339–45.

8.Skalak R. Biomechanical considerations in osseointegrated prostheses. J Prosthet Dent. 1983. 49:843–8.

9.Nissan J., Barnea E., Krauze E., Assif D. Impression technique for partially edentulous patients. J Prosthet Dent. 2002. 88:103–4.

10.Carr AB. Comparison of impression techniques for a five-implant mandibular model. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 1991. 6:448–55.

11.Rodney J., Johansen R., Harris W. Dimensional accuracy of two implant impression copings. J Dent Res. 1991. 70:385. (abstract no. 953).

12.Burton JF., Hood JA., Plunkett DJ., Johnson SS. The effects of disposable and custom-made impression trays on the accuracy of impressions. J Dent. 1989. 17:121–3.

13.Bomberg TJ., Hatch RA., Hoffman W Jr. Impression material thickness in stock and custom trays. J Prosthet Dent. 1985. 54:170–2.

14.Ryu SI., Chang IT., Kim KN. The influence of impression trays on the accuracy of the stone casts poured from complete-arch impressions. J Korean Acad Prosthodont. 1992. 30:1–14.

15.Cho GC., Chee WW. Distortion of disposable plastic stock trays when used with putty vinyl polysiloxane impression materials. J Prosthet Dent. 2004. 92:354–8.

16.Reisbick MH., Matyas J. The accuracy of highly filled elastomeric impression materials. J Prosthet Dent. 1975. 33:67–72.

17.Binon PP. The effect of implant/abutment hexagonal misfit on screw joint stability. Int J Prosthodont. 1996. 9:149–60.

18.Waskewicz GA., Ostrowski JS., Parks VJ. Photoelastic analysis of stress distribution transmitted from a fixed prosthesis attached to osseointegrated implants. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 1994. 9:405–11.

19.Inturregui JA., Aquilino SA., Ryther JS., Lund PS. Evaluation of three impression techniques for osseointegrated oral implants. J Prosthet Dent. 1993. 69:503–9.

20.Burawi G., Houston F., Byrne D., Claffey N. A comparison of the dimensional accuracy of the splinted and unsplinted impression techniques for the Bone-Lock implant system. J Prosthet Dent. 1997. 77:68–75.

21.Spector MR., Donovan TE., Nicholls JI. An evaluation of impression techniques for osseointegrated implants. J Prosthet Dent. 1990. 63:444–7.

22.Lee H., So JS., Hochstedler JL., Ercoli C. The accuracy of implant impressions: a systematic review. J Prosthet Dent. 2008. 100:285–91.

23.Wee AG. Comparison of impression materials for direct multi-implant impressions. J Prosthet Dent. 2000. 83:323–31.

24.Liou AD., Nicholls JI., Yuodelis RA., Brudvik JS. Accuracy of replacing three tapered transfer impression copings in two elastomeric impression materials. Int J Prosthodont. 1993. 6:377–83.

25.Cho GC., Chee WW. Distortion of disposable plastic stock trays when used with putty vinyl polysiloxane impression materials. J Prosthet Dent. 2004. 92:354–8.

26.Masri R., Driscoll CF., Burkhardt J., Von Fraunhofer A., Romberg E. Pressure generated on a simulated oral analog by impression materials in custom trays of different designs. J Prosthodont. 2002. 11:155–60.

27.Phillips RW. Skinner' s Science of Dental Materials. 8th ed.WB Saunders Co., Philadelphia;1982. p. 137–156. p. 177–215.

28.Eames WB., Sieweke JC., Wallace SW., Rogers LB. Elastomeric impression materials: effect of bulk on accuracy. J Prosthet Dent. 1979. 41:304–7.

29.Johnson GH., Craig RG. Accuracy of addition silicones as a function of technique. J Prosthet Dent. 1986. 55:197–203.

30.Kan JY., Rungcharassaeng K., Bohsali K., Goodacre CJ., Lang BR. Clinical methods for evaluating implant framework fit. J Prosthet Dent. 1999. 81:7–13.

Fig. 1.

Fixture-level impression coping.

Fig. 2.

Impression tray used in this study.

Fig. 3.

Reference framework.

Fig. 4.

Master model used in this study.

Fig. 5.

Measuring block.

Fig. 6.

Gap measurement points on stone blocks.

Fig. 7.

The bar graph of results of vertical gap measurements. MC : Metal stock tray + Closed tray impression technique PC : Polycarbonate stock tray + Closed tray impression technique PO : Polycarbonate stock tray + Open tray impression technique IC : Individual tray + Closed tray impression technique IO : Individual tray + Open tray impression technique (Post., posterior part of master model; Ant., Anterior part of master model)

Table I.

Implant components used in this study

Implant component	Code	Manufacturer
Implant fixture lab analogue	FAR300	Osstem Co., Korea
Fixture transfer impression coping	ICPR502S	Osstem Co., Korea
Fixture pick-up impression coping	ICFR500N	Osstem Co., Korea
Guide pin	CSR150	Osstem Co., Korea
Non-hex UCLA gold abutment	GCR100	Osstem Co., Korea

Table II.

Classification of experimental groups and number of specimens

Kinds of tray	Impression method	Location of impression coping	Number of specimen	Groups
Metal stock tray	Closed	Anterior	9	MCA
	Closed	Posterior	9	MCP
	Closed	Anterior	9	PCA
Polycarbonate stock tray	Closed	Posterior	9	PCP
	Open	Anterior	9	POA
	Open	Posterior	9	POP
	Closed	Anterior	9	ICA
Individual tray	Closed	Posterior	9	ICP
	Open	Anterior	9	IOA
	Open	Posterior	9	IOP

Table III.

Results of vertical fit discrepancy (unit : μ m)

	MCA	MCP	PCA	PCP	POA
Mean SD	104.03	67.13	150.35	81.87	74.54
Mean SD	41.72	56.43	29.16	28.63	49.44
	POP	ICA	ICP	IOA	IOP
Mean SD	43.81	97.04	67.44	75.00	26.68
Mean SD	28.45	26.16	21.99	22.13	8.03

Table IV.

Results of Scheffe's test according to impression trays

	MC	PC	IC
MC
PC
IC		∗

^∗ Denotes pair of groups significantly different at the 0.05 level.

MC : Metal stock tray + Closed tray impression technique PC : Polycarbonate stock tray + Closed tray impression technique IC : Individual tray + Closed tray impression technique

Table V.

Results of independent t-test according to impression technique (unit : μ m)

	Mean	SD	P-value
PC	116.11	28.9	0.001
PO	59.17	38.95

^∗ Denotes pair of groups significantly different at the 0.05 level.

SD = standard deviation PC : Polycarbonate stock tray + Closed tray impression technique PO : Polycarbonate stock tray + Open tray impression technique

Table VI.

Results of Scheffe's test at anterior region

IC	IO	PC
IC
IO
PC	∗
PO		∗
MC

^∗ Denotes pair of groups significantly different at the 0.05 level.

MC : Metal stock tray + Closed tray impression technique PC : Polycarbonate stock tray + Closed tray impression technique PO : Polycarbonate stock tray + Open tray impression technique IC : Individual tray + Closed tray impression technique IO : Individual tray + Open tray impression technique

Table VII.

Results of Scheffe's test at posterior region

IC	IO	PC	PO	MC
IC
IO
PC		∗
PO
MC

^∗ Denotes pair of groups significantly different at the 0.05 level.

TOOLS

Similar articles