Accuracy of the healing abutment and impression coping combined system on implant impression

Kyoung-Bae Jeon; Du-Hyeong Lee; Jung-Han Kim; Jun-Ho Hwang; Hyun-We Park; Kyu-Bok Lee

doi:10.4047/jkap.2015.53.2.105

Journal List > J Korean Acad Prosthodont > v.53(2) > 1034816

Go to TopGo to Top Go to BottomGo to Bottom

TOOLS

Jeon, Lee, Kim, Hwang, Park, and Lee: Accuracy of the healing abutment and impression coping combined system on implant impression

Original Article

J Korean Acad Prosthodont 2015;53(2):105-110.

Published online: 9 February 2015

DOI: https://doi.org/10.4047/jkap.2015.53.2.105

Accuracy of the healing abutment and impression coping combined system on implant impression

Kyoung-Bae Jeon^1,^†, Du-Hyeong Lee^1,^†, Jung-Han Kim², Jun-Ho Hwang², Hyun-We Park², Kyu-Bok Lee^1,^∗

¹Department of Prosthodontics, School of Dentistry, Kyungpook National University, Daegu, Republic of Korea

²RaphaBio Co., Seoul, Republic of Korea

^∗Corresponding Author: Kyu-Bok Lee Department of Prosthodontics, School of Dentistry, Kyungpook National University, 2177 Dalgubeoldae-ro, Jung-gu, Daegu 700-412, Republic of Korea +82 53 600 7674: e-mail, kblee@knu.ac.kr.

^† These authors contributed equally to this work.

^※ This research was supported by INNOPOLIS Foundation funded by the Ministry of Science, ICT & Future Planning (ACC-2013-DGI-00554).

Received 24 December 20142 February 2015 Accepted 6 February 2015

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 purpose of this study was to evaluate the 3 dimensional accuracy of impression taking on the newly developed healing abutment and impression coping combined system comparing conventional pick-up type impression.

Materials and methods

For 10 patients who had a single missing tooth on molar area, dental implants (SuperLine; Dentium, Seoul, Korea) were placed and healing abutment (MyHealing; Raphabio Co., Seoul, Korea) abutments were connected. After 3 months, transfer type impression with MyHealing and pick-up type impression with impression coping were performed twice in the same patients, and master models were fabricated. Customized prosthetic abutments (Myplant; Raphabio Co., Seoul, Korea) were milled and connected to the master casts. Through a dental scanner (Scanner S600; Zirkonzahn, South Tyrol, Italy), the master casts were converted into virtual casts. The length and angulation differences between casts were measured using 3 dimentional analysis program (Geomagic Qualify 12; Geomagic, Morrisville, NC, USA). Statistical significance was calculated using Kruskal Wallis test and Mann-Whitney U test (α =.05).

Results

The length differences between the two systems were 0.032 mm in sagittal plane, and 0.029 in coronal plane, and 0.023 mm in horizontal plane. The angulation differences were 0.755† in sagittal plane, and 1.275† in coronal plane, and 0.420† in horizontal plane.

Conclusion

The accuracy of newly developed healing abutment system is similar to that of conventional pick-up impression. The new system can reduces chair time by not using separate impression coping.

Keywords: Implant, Healing abutment, Impression taking, Accuracy

REFERENCES

1. Rangert B, Jemt T, Jö rneus L. Forces and moments on Brå nemark implants. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 1989; 4:241–7.

2. Misch CE. Contemporary implant dentistry. 3rd ed.; Mosby. Elsevier;Canada. 2009. p. 68–84.

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

4. Sellers GC. Direct assembly framework for osseointegrated implant prosthesis. J Prosthet Dent. 1989; 62:662–8.

5. Henry PJ. An alternative method for the production of accurate casts and occlusal records in osseointegrated implant rehabilitation. J Prosthet Dent. 1987; 58:694–7.

6. Tautin FS. Impression making for osseointegrated dentures. J Prosthet Dent. 1985; 54:250–1.

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

8. 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.

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

10. Rodney J, Johansen R, Harris W. Dimensional accuracy of two implant impression copings. J Dent Res. 1991; 70:385.

11. Cabral LM, Guedes CG. Comparative analysis of 4 impression techniques for implants. Implant Dent. 2007; 16:187–94.

12. Daoudi MF, Setchell DJ, Searson LJ. An evaluation of three implant level impression techniques for single tooth implant. Eur J Prosthodont Restor Dent. 2004; 12:9–14.

13. Carr AB. Comparison of impression techniques for a two-implant 15-degree divergent model. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 1992; 7:468–75.

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

15. Barrett MG, de Rijk WG, Burgess JO. The accuracy of six impression techniques for osseointegrated implants. J Prosthodont. 1993; 2:75–82.

16. Assuncao WG, Filho HG, Zaniquelli O. Evaluation of transfer impressions for osseointegrated implants at various angulations. Implant Dent. 2004; 13:358–66.

17. Del'Acqua MA, Arioli-Filho JN, Compagnoni MA, Mollo Fde A Jr. Accuracy of impression and pouring techniques for an implant-supported prosthesis. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2008; 23:226–36.

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

Fig. 1.

Newly developed healing abutment equipped with a impression cap on state.

Fig. 2.

Transfer type impression using healing abutment.

Fig. 3.

Impression coping on state.

Fig. 4.

Pick-up type impression using conventional impression coping.

Fig. 5.

Superimposed images of two scan images.

Fig. 6.

Analysis of difference between the two virtual models (impression healing abutment used / impression coping used).

Fig. 7.

Distance between the two abutments in superimposed view of each plane; x (sagittal plane), y (coronal plane), z (horizontal plane). ∗The mark represents significant difference. † The mark indicates outliers.

Fig. 8.

Axis between the two abutments in superimposed view of each plane; x (sagittal plane), y (coronal plane), z (horizontal plane). ∗The mark represents significant difference.

TOOLS

Similar articles