Journal of Research and Advancement in Dentistry
Official publication of Magadh University and Kolhan University, Government of Bihar and Jharkhand, India
Official publication of Magadh University and Kolhan University, Government of Bihar and Jharkhand, India
Year : 2021
Volume : Volume 12
Issue : Issue 2
Address for correspondence :
Dr. Manish Goutam
drmanishgoutam@gmail.com
Background: Implant impression technique selection is always very crucial for success of implant treatment as any minor deviation from accurate transfer will result in ill fitting of framework. The present study has evaluated two most widely used techniques and comparison between their accuracy is done to get the most accurate technique. Materials and Method: Total 60 impressions were recorded with 15 each subdivided in 4 groups. Impressions were recorded and cast prepared from each impression. 4 Reference points were marked and distance from each reference points were measured in the prepared cast and comparison was done with the master model. Measured values were tabulated and Statistical analysis was done using Statistical Package of Social Science (SPSS Version 20; Chicago Inc., USA). One Sample t-test for comparison with master model and Student’s t-test was used to analyze the variation in mean between two groups of a variable with a normal distribution were employed. Significance level was fixed at P < 0.05. Result: Measurements of distances among each points A,B,C,D was recorded and comparative analysis of mean deviation of interabutment distance from master model at various distance was found statistically nonsignificant. (P>0.05). Least mean deviation was found in group of open tray technique with Polyether impression material for all distance. Closed tray with Polyvinyl Siloxane showed highest deviation of mean values. However, when intergroup comparison among groups was done through Student ‘t’ test, deviations did not show any significant statistical difference (P>0.05). Mean deviation between open tray with polyether and polyvinyl siloxane as well as between closed tray with polyether and polyvinyl through student ‘t’ test showed comparable accuracy with no significant statistical difference (P>0.05). Conclusion: Within limitation of the study conducted, the following conclusions were drawn from the study that both Open tray and closed tray techniques can be used with either Polyether or polyvinyl siloxane impression material to get accurate transfer of intraoral implant positions to the working cast.
Keywords: Implant, Impression, Polyether, Polyvinyl Siloxane.
