428 The accuracy of two implant impression techniques using Surgical Guide

Thursday, March 22, 2012: 3:30 p.m. - 4:45 p.m.
Presentation Type: Poster Session
S.M. CASTANHARO1, G.R. HATANAKA2, E.D. AVILA2, M.A. DEL ACQUA3, J.D.A. VASCONCELOS2, and F.D.A. MOLLO JR4, 1Dental Materials and Prothesis, Universidade Est. Paulista Julio Mesquita, Araraquara, Brazil, 2Universidade Est. Paulista Julio Mesquita, Araraquara, Brazil, 3Professor of Dental Prosthesis, Centro Universitário de Araraquara - UNIARA, Araraquara, Brazil, 4Professor of Total Prosthesis, Universidade Est. Paulista Julio Mesquita, Araraquara, Brazil
Objectives: Traditional surgical guides (SG) are acrylic appliances used during surgery to place implants properly by conveying the decisions for implant positions made during the diagnostic and treatment planning stages. Also in a next stage, the SG is used to duplicate or to reproduce the long axis of future moreover it facilitates the transfer impression and at the same time, maintains the patient´s vertical occlusion dimension. Thus, the aim of this study was to analyze and compare, in vitro, the accuracy of two impression techniques for multiple implants using SG. Methods: A master cast consisted of a mandibular edentulous cast with four parallel abutments analogs with a framework used to proportionate a clinically relevant simulation. Two groups, with 8 casts each, were defined according to the impression material and for each group, two subgroup were defined according to the technique: Group 1: Impression Cast with Perfectim Blue Velt and the subgroups Multifunctional Guide with metal splinted impression copings (M) and Multifunctional Guide Without splinted coping (WS); Group 2: Impression technique with Impregum and subgroups M and WS.  Results: The results showed statistically significant differences between all groups (p<=0.001) (Kruskal-Wallis One Way Analysis of Variance on Ranks). When using multiple comparisons (Dunn´s test) with the master cast (MC) the results showed all groups similar to each other and difference from MC. Conclusion: Within the limitations of this study, it was concluded that any technique could be chosen. The group I (WS) was the most indicated to favors the assembly stiffness, getting faster, especially in immediate charge, when is required the ease of work and quickness. However, the group 2 WS presented the worst mean, demonstrating less accuracy and fidelity to transfer implants.

Keywords: Dental materials, Implantology, Impression materials, Oral implantology and Prostheses