Dental Implants, Dental Impression Materials, Dental Impression Techniques
Conditions
Keywords
Dental implants
Brief summary
The purpose of this study is to evaluate the effectiveness of heavy Vinyl PolySiloxane (VPS) and splinted implants impression (Study Group, SG) technique versus plaster implant impression (Control Group, CG) technique, in 12 edentulous patients rehabilitated with the All-on-4/6 concept and Procera® Implant Bridge (P.I.B.). A longitudinal, double blinded, randomised clinical trial (RCT) was designed to evaluate the accuracy of the impression. All patients were monitored from implant placement until prosthetic loading.
Detailed description
The aim of the present study was to investigate the accuracy of pick-up, splinted implants, and heavy VPS impression techniques (Aquasil Putty DECA™ and Aquasil Ultra Light Viscosity (LV) Regular Set, Dentsply International Inc, Caulk, USA); to compare two splint materials for implants: Primopattern LC gel (Primotec, Bad Homburg, Germany), and Smart Dentin Replacement (SDR™, Dentsply International Inc, Caulk, USA); to examine the clinical factors affecting the accuracy of implant impressions; to test the tension-free fit of the new scanner and software NobelProcera™ (NobelBiocare, AB, Göteborg, Sweden) titanium frameworks.The hypothesis to demonstrate is that all impression techniques and used materials reduce time for final restoration and improve the accuracy of the impression.
Interventions
PROCEDURESnow white plaster 2
Test. Plaster impression not splinted.
PROCEDUREPrimopattern LC gel + PVS
Control PVS impression
Sponsors
Nobel Biocare
Hospital San Pietro Fatebenefratelli
Study design
Allocation
RANDOMIZED
Intervention model
FACTORIAL
Primary purpose
TREATMENT
Masking
DOUBLE (Subject, Investigator)
Eligibility
Sex/Gender
ALL
Age
21 Years to 90 Years
Healthy volunteers
Yes
Inclusion criteria
* Age 21 years or older. * Both genders. * Fully edentulous patients. * Both maxilla and mandible. * Dental implant rehabilitation utilizing the All-on-4 concept at least 8 weeks before impression. * External hex dental implant. * Patients with ability to understand and sign the informed consent prior to starting the study. * Adequate oral hygiene. * Immediate functional loading. * Implant stability quote value =/\> 65 from implant placement to final prosthetic rehabilitation.
Exclusion criteria
* Failure of one or more inclusion criteria.
Design outcomes
Primary
| Measure | Time frame | Description |
|---|---|---|
| Implant failure | Up to 5 years after implant placement | An implant was consid- ered to be a failure if it was lost owing to mobility, implant fracture and/or any infection requiring implant removal. |
Secondary
| Measure | Time frame | Description |
|---|---|---|
| Inter-implants distance between groups | 4 to 5 months after implant placement (baseline) | Inter-implants distance between groups assessed both on casts and digital photos measured in mm. |
| Chair-time | 4 to 5 months after implant placement (baseline) | Time needed to take impression in both control and test group measured in seconds. |
Countries
Italy
Outcome results
None listed