|
|
 
 |
| ORIGINAL ARTICLE |
|
| Year : 2021 | Volume
: 13
| Issue : 5 | Page : 367-369 |
|
|
Influence of implant angulation and implant number on the accuracy of definitive casts
Abhay Kiran Narayane1, Suhana Shamsuddeen2, Swati Kharat3, Tabish Rashidi3, Aachut Pandav4, Manoj Kumar Thakur5
1 Department of Prosthodontics, Dr. Hedgewar Smruti Rugna Seva Mandals' Dental College and Hospital, Hingoli, Maharashtra, India
2 Department of Periodontics, Bengaluru, India
3 Department of Periodontics, Dr. Rajesh Ramdasji Kambe Dental College and Hospital, Akola, Maharashtra, India
4 Department of Conservative Dentistry and Endodontics, Dr. Hedgewar Smruti Rugna Seva Mandals' Dental College and Hospital, Hingoli, Maharashtra, India
5 Reader, Department of Prosthodontics and Crown and Bridge, Vananchal Dental College and Hospital (VDCH), Garhwa, Jharkhand, India
| Date of Submission | 02-Dec-2020 |
| Date of Decision | 05-Dec-2020 |
| Date of Acceptance | 08-Dec-2020 |
| Date of Web Publication | 05-Jun-2021 |
Correspondence Address:
Abhay Kiran Narayane
Department of Prosthodontics, Dr. Hedgewar Smruti Rugna Seva Mandals' Dental College and Hospital, Hingoli, Maharashtra
India
 Source of Support: None, Conflict of Interest: None  | Check |
DOI: 10.4103/jpbs.JPBS_792_20
 Abstract | | |
Background: The present study determined the effect of implant angulation and implant number on the dimensional precision of implant definitive casts. Materials and Methods: Three definitive casts with implant analogs placed in a triangular pattern were made from dental stone. Group I was control group, Group II in which implant numbers 1 and 3 were at 5° convergence to the implant number 2. Group III in which implant numbers 1 and 3 are at 5° divergence to the implant number 2. Group IV in which implant numbers 1 and 3 are at 10° convergence to the implant number 2. Implant analogs were secured in all the definitive casts with cyanoacrylate. Three open tray impressions of the definitive cast were obtained and poured in Type IV dental stone. Coordinates in the three planes were measured at implant analog top surface and base of the cast using a fine tip measuring stylus. The data were aligned and angular differences between implant analog vectors from definitive and duplicate casts were measured. Results: There was a significant correlation between dental implant number and dental implant angulation (P < 0.05). There was a significant result when comparing the effect of the parallel group from 5° divergence and 10° convergence groups. A significant results while comparing the parallel group with 5° divergence and 10° convergence was obtained whereas while comparing 5° divergence, 5° divergence, and 10° convergence a nonsignificant difference was obtained (P > 0.05). Conclusion: Close proximity of implant angulation toward right-angled direction results in higher precision of implant.
Keywords: Definitive casts, dental implant, open tray technique
How to cite this article:
Narayane AK, Shamsuddeen S, Kharat S, Rashidi T, Pandav A, Thakur MK. Influence of implant angulation and implant number on the accuracy of definitive casts. J Pharm Bioall Sci 2021;13, Suppl S1:367-9 |
How to cite this URL:
Narayane AK, Shamsuddeen S, Kharat S, Rashidi T, Pandav A, Thakur MK. Influence of implant angulation and implant number on the accuracy of definitive casts. J Pharm Bioall Sci [serial online] 2021 [cited 2022 May 17];13, Suppl S1:367-9. Available from: https://www.jpbsonline.org/text.asp?2021/13/5/367/317690 |
| Introduction | |  |
Dental implants are one of the superior inventions in the field of dentistry. For ensuring successful dental implant treatment, accurate impression procedures are necessary for passively fitting prosthesis. Impression covering all aspects of dental implants is the foremost point in order to achieve better results.[1] Inaccurate superstructure fit may result into mechanical and biologic complications affecting the functioning of dental implants. Among various complications, implant loosening, bending, and fracture of the prosthetic or implant components are important and commonly seen. Biologic complications comprised of fracture of the interface between the dental implant and the alveolar bone due to overloading physiologic tolerance levels.[2]
It is found that integrated implants are immobile, hence it is imperative to make certain an accurate relationship on the definitive cast.[3] It is evident that impression technique, type of tray, dental stone manipulation technique, and compatibility of the cast with impression materials are few factors that affect the accuracy of the master cast. There are various methods employed for the transfer of the implant positions from the intraoral position to a working cast. The open tray technique and the closed tray technique are commonly used methods.[4]
The technique of open tray encompasses implant fastening to an impression handling with a screw and through impression tray's opening cut. In the closed tray technique, there is no detachment of the tray after the removal of impression. The objective of a multi-implant impression is that a precise and accurate transfer of the impression can be achieved between implant abutments or implants.[5] The present study determined the effect of implant angulation and implant number on the dimensional precision of implant definitive casts.
| Materials and Methods | | |
This in vitro study was conducted in the department of prosthodontics. This study was approved by the institutional ethics committee. It comprised four definitive casts that were made by manipulating Type IV gypsum following the manufacturer's instructions and pouring into a 4.0 cm × 2 cm hemispherical preformed mold. The casts were then retrieved.
A plane was created on definitive casts with three implants placed in a triangular pattern with the distance of 1.1 cm between implants 1 and 2, implants 2 and 3, and 1.5 cm between implants 1 and 3. Three points were punched on the base of the cast each at a distance of 0.2 cm from the outer surface of the cast. The holes were plunged cut in the casts using vertical milling machine which matched the diameter and depth of implant analogs and degrees convergence or divergence of implant numbers 1 and 3 from the center implant. The holes for these implants were milled at 5°, 10°, and 15° of divergence or convergence. Four groups were made. Group I was control group in which all three implants were kept perpendicular to the plane of the cast. Group II in which implant numbers 1 and 3 were at 5° convergence to the implant number 2. Group III in which implant numbers 1 and 3 are at 5° divergence to the implant number 2. Group IV in which implant numbers 1 and 3 are at 10° convergence to the implant number 2. Implant analogs were secured in all the definitive casts with cyanoacrylate.
Three open tray impressions of the definitive cast were obtained and poured in Type IV dental stone. Coordinates in the three planes were measured at implant analog top surface and base of the cast using a fine tip measuring stylus. The data were aligned and angular differences between implant analog vectors from definitive and duplicate casts were measured. Results were subjected for statistical analysis where P < 0.05 was considered statistically significant.
| Results | | |
[Table 1] shows that there was a significant correlation between dental implant number and dental implant angulation (P < 0.05). | Table 1: Assessment of effect of implant number and angulation on impression accuracy
Click here to view |
[Table 2] shows that there were significant results when comparing the effect of the parallel group from 5° divergence and 10° convergence groups. | Table 2: Assessment of comparison of three implant numbers for implant angulation
Click here to view |
[Table 3] shows significant results while comparing parallel group with 5° divergence and 10° convergence, whereas while comparing 5° divergence, 5° divergence, and 10° convergence, a nonsignificant difference was obtained (P > 0.05).
| Discussion | | |
Proper working casts are vital to manufacture passively fitting implant prostheses. A good and precise implant impression plays a major role and serves as an initial point in the process of creating good working casts.[6] Hence, the comparative accuracy of the impression techniques becomes a significant issue in consideration of passive fit.[7] The present study determined the effect of implant angulation and implant number on the dimensional precision of implant definitive casts.
In the present study, we found that there was a significant correlation between dental implant number and dental implant angulation (P < 0.05). Conrad et al.[8] evaluated the effect the combined interaction of impression technique, implant angulation, and implant number on the accuracy of implant definitive casts. It was found that there was nonsignificant difference for the closed and open tray impression techniques (P > 0.05). Implant angulations and implant numbers differed in average angle errors but not in any easily interpreted pattern. The combined interaction of impression technique, implant angulation, and implant number had no effect on the accuracy of the duplicate casts compared to the definitive casts (P = 0.19).
We found that there was a significant result when comparing the effect of the parallel group from 5° divergence and 10° convergence groups. Assuncao et al.[9] determined the accuracy of the transfer process in respect to implant analog angulations 90°, 80°, 75°, and 65° and different impression materials. It was concluded that the more perpendicular the implant analog angulation was in relation to the horizontal surface, the more accurate the impression was.
We observed significant results while comparing parallel group with 5° divergence and 10° convergence, whereas while comparing 5° divergence, 5° divergence, and 10° convergence, a nonsignificant difference was obtained (P > 0.05).
The open tray and closed tray impression techniques are routinely used for transferring implant positions before the fabrication of prosthesis. The type of impression material, the implant impression technique, die material accuracy, and the implant master cast technique determine the accuracy of the implant cast. Vigolo et al.[10] compared direct splinted technique with acrylic splinting with indirect technique or the nonsplinted direct techniques. Results found a direct splinted technique better than indirect technique.
Martínez-Rus et al.[11] assessed the effect of different implant-level impression techniques on the accuracy of definitive casts. Six tapered screw-vent implants were placed in a reference model with 0°, 15°, and 30° angulation and at 0, 1, and 3 mm subgingival positions. Twenty medium-consistency polyether impressions of this model were made with indirect technique, unsplinted direct technique, acrylic resin-splinted direct technique, and metal-splinted direct technique. Results showed that four impression procedures showed significant differences. Only Group 4 casts showed no significant differences in comparison with the reference model (P = 0.666).
In the present study, Type IV die stone was used to pour the casts. Custom impression trays using light cure hybrid composite resin material were fabricated providing double thickness of modeling wax as spacer. Master casts poured in addition silicone and polyether with Type IV die stone give better results.[5]
The shortcoming of the study is small sample size.
| Conclusion | | |
Authors found that close proximity of implant angulation toward right-angled direction results in higher precision of implant.
Financial support and sponsorship
Nil.
Conflicts of interest
There are no conflicts of interest.
| References | | |
| 1. | Carr AB. Comparison of impression techniques for a five-implant mandibular model. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 1991;6:448-55.  |
| 2. | Windhorn RJ, Gunnell TR. A simple open-tray implant impression technique. J Prosthet Dent 2006;96:220-1. |
| 3. | Kohavi D. A combined impression technique for a partial implant-supported fixed-detachable restoration. Quintessence Int 1997;28:177-81. |
| 4. | Assif D, Marsha B, Schmidt A. Accuracy of implant impression techniques. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 1996;11:216-22. |
| 5. | 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. |
| 6. | Barrett MG, de Rijk WG, Burgess JO. The accuracy of six impression techniques for osseointegrated implants. J Prosthodont 1993;2:75-82. |
| 7. | Jemt T, Rubenstein JE, Carlsson L, Lang BR. Measuring fit at the implant prosthodontic interface. J Prosthet Dent 1996;75:314-25. |
| 8. | Conrad HJ, Pesun IJ, DeLong R, Hodges JS. Accuracy of two impression techniques with angulated implants. J Prosthet Dent 2007;97:349-56. |
| 9. | Assuncao WG, Filho HG, Zaniquelli O. Evaluation of transfer impressions for osseointegrated implants at various angulations. Implant Dent 2004;13:358-66. |
| 10. | Vigolo P, Majzoub Z, Cordioli G. In vitro comparison of master cast accuracy for single-tooth implant replacement. J Prosthet Dent 2000;83:562-6. |
| 11. | Martínez-Rus F, García C, Santamaría A, Özcan M, Pradíes G. Accuracy of definitive casts using 4 implant-level impression techniques in a scenario of multi-implant system with different implant angulations and subgingival alignment levels. Implant Dent 2013;22:268-76. |
[Table 1], [Table 2], [Table 3]
|
