Presentation Information
[P-59（E）]Comparison of impression accuracy for CAD-CAM abutment according to location of screw access hole and impression method
*Seong soo Cho1, Lee-Ra Cho1, Chan-jin Park1, Yoon-hyuk Huh1, Kyung-ho Ko1 (1. Department of Prosthodontics, College of Dentistry, Gangneung-Wonju National University)
[Objective]
Evaluate the accuracy of the abutment level impression in relation to the combination of the impression material and the position of the screw access hole and whether it is filled or not using CAD-CAM abutment.
[Method]
Implants were placed in #14 and #16 in the cast lost by #14,15,16. At this time, #14 implant were placed identically, but #16 implant were placed so that has buccopalatal angle with the #14 implant 0, 15, and 30° deviated, and CAD-CAM abutment were manufactured and placed that had the same appearance but only position of the screw access hole of the #16 implant was changed. Master cast was manufactured, and PVS impression was performed to create a gypsum cast and the impression accuracy was compared by superimposition using scans. In the first experiment, impression accuracy was compared in 6 groups according to the impression material combination and method. The second was the position of the screw access hole and whether the screw access hole was filled or not. Total, horizontal, vertical, and angular deviation were measured and compared using the analysis program.
[Results and Discussion]
The combination of impression materials, the location of the screw access hole, and whether or not it is filled had a significant effect on the accuracy of impression (P<.05). Among impression methods the Triple phase 2-step methods using the medium and light body was the most accurate (P<.05). As the implant placement angle increased, the position of the screw access hole was located on the buccal side, and when the screw access hole was not filled, the horizontal deviation decreased and the vertical deviation and angular deviation tended to increase (P<.05).
[References]
1) Katsoulis J, Takeichi T, Sol Gaviria A, et al. Misfit of implant prostheses and its impact on clinical outcomes. Definition, assessment and a systematic review of the literature. Eur J Oral Implantol 2017;10 Suppl 1:121-38.
2) Janda M, Larsson C, Mattheos N. Influence of Misfit on the Occurrence of Porcelain Veneer Fractures in Implant-Supported Metal-Ceramic Fixed Dental Prostheses. Part 2: A Three-Dimensional Finite Element Analysis. Int J Prosthodont 2021;34:458–62.
Evaluate the accuracy of the abutment level impression in relation to the combination of the impression material and the position of the screw access hole and whether it is filled or not using CAD-CAM abutment.
[Method]
Implants were placed in #14 and #16 in the cast lost by #14,15,16. At this time, #14 implant were placed identically, but #16 implant were placed so that has buccopalatal angle with the #14 implant 0, 15, and 30° deviated, and CAD-CAM abutment were manufactured and placed that had the same appearance but only position of the screw access hole of the #16 implant was changed. Master cast was manufactured, and PVS impression was performed to create a gypsum cast and the impression accuracy was compared by superimposition using scans. In the first experiment, impression accuracy was compared in 6 groups according to the impression material combination and method. The second was the position of the screw access hole and whether the screw access hole was filled or not. Total, horizontal, vertical, and angular deviation were measured and compared using the analysis program.
[Results and Discussion]
The combination of impression materials, the location of the screw access hole, and whether or not it is filled had a significant effect on the accuracy of impression (P<.05). Among impression methods the Triple phase 2-step methods using the medium and light body was the most accurate (P<.05). As the implant placement angle increased, the position of the screw access hole was located on the buccal side, and when the screw access hole was not filled, the horizontal deviation decreased and the vertical deviation and angular deviation tended to increase (P<.05).
[References]
1) Katsoulis J, Takeichi T, Sol Gaviria A, et al. Misfit of implant prostheses and its impact on clinical outcomes. Definition, assessment and a systematic review of the literature. Eur J Oral Implantol 2017;10 Suppl 1:121-38.
2) Janda M, Larsson C, Mattheos N. Influence of Misfit on the Occurrence of Porcelain Veneer Fractures in Implant-Supported Metal-Ceramic Fixed Dental Prostheses. Part 2: A Three-Dimensional Finite Element Analysis. Int J Prosthodont 2021;34:458–62.
