The Accuracy of Casts Obtained Using Different Impression Techniques and Impression Materials in Combined Parallel and Angulated Implants: An In Vitro Study

• Published in: Curēus (Palo Alto, CA) Vol. 16; no. 4; p. e59193
• Main Authors: V, Menaga, Chirom, Babina, Gunadhar, Kangjam, Priyadarshini, Shamurailatpam, Nongthombam, Rajesh S, P, Manikandan
• Format: Journal Article
• Language: English
• Published: United States Cureus Inc 28.04.2024; Cureus
• Subjects: Accuracy; Adhesives; Dentistry; Polymerization; Prostheses; Transplants & implants; Variance analysis; United States > US; Mumbai India; India; closed tray technique; accuracy; open tray technique; dental implants; impression material
• ISSN: 2168-8184; 2168-8184
• DOI: 10.7759/cureus.59193

Aim The aim of this in vitro study was to evaluate and compare the accuracy of casts made from two elastomeric impression materials (polyvinyl siloxane (PVS) and vinylsiloxanether (VSE)) using different impression techniques on parallel and angulated implants. Materials and methods The reference model was fabricated using auto-polymerizing acrylic resin on which three implant analogs were placed of which two were parallel to each other and the third at 20-degree mesial angulation. A total of 60 impressions were made of which 30 were by using PVS and 30 by VSE. For each material, 10 impressions were made by closed tray technique, 10 by open tray technique and 10 by open tray with sandblasting and adhesive coating of the impression copings technique. The inter-analog distances of the casts obtained were evaluated and compared with the reference model by a vision measuring machine. Data were analyzed using analysis of variance (ANOVA), Tukey's Honest Significant Difference (HSD) post hoc and independent samples t-test. Results When the inter-analog distances of the duplicate casts were compared with the reference model, the mean error rates for parallel implants decreased in the order of closed tray technique, open tray technique and open tray with sandblasting and adhesive coating of the impression copings technique for both PVS and VSE impression materials. Similarly, the same order was observed for angulated implants for both impression materials. Using the closed tray technique, there was no statistically significant difference in the accuracy of the cast between the two materials for parallel implants (P = 0.525) and also no significant difference between the two materials for angulated implants (P = 0.307). Similarly, there was no statistically significant difference in the accuracy of the cast between the two materials for parallel implants (P = 0.455) and also no significant difference between the two materials for angulated implants (P = 0.519) using the open tray technique. Whereas for the open tray with sandblasting and adhesive coating of the impression copings technique, VSE produced a more accurate cast than PVS for parallel implants and was statistically significant (P = 0.033); however, there was no significant difference between the two materials for angulated implants (P = 0.375). Conclusion For parallel implants, VSE by an open tray with sandblasting and adhesive coating of the impression copings technique produced a more accurate cast than PVS. For angulated implants, there was no significant difference between the two materials and it was only the technique that significantly affected the accuracy of the cast.