International Journal of Prosthodontics and Restorative Dentistry

Register      Login

VOLUME 12 , ISSUE 1 ( January-March, 2022 ) > List of Articles


The Effect of Various Splinting Materials on the Accuracy of Implant Impressions: An In Vitro Study

Meet A Dodia, Sanjay B Lagdive, Rupal J Shah, Nilesh N Patel

Keywords : Dental Implants, Implant Impression, Open tray impression, Splinting

Citation Information : Dodia MA, Lagdive SB, Shah RJ, Patel NN. The Effect of Various Splinting Materials on the Accuracy of Implant Impressions: An In Vitro Study. Int J Prosthodont Restor Dent 2022; 12 (1):16-24.

DOI: 10.5005/jp-journals-10019-1359

License: CC BY-NC 4.0

Published Online: 18-10-2022

Copyright Statement:  Copyright © 2022; The Author(s).


Purpose: The purpose of the present study was the comparative evaluation of the positional accuracy of different types of splinting materials used in implant impressions with the open tray technique. Materials and methods: A clear heat cure acrylic resin mandibular master reference model was used with four implants in positions A, B, D, and E. Open tray direct impression copings were fastened to the implants and splinted using different materials: bite registration paste, composite resin, pattern resin bars, and photopolymerized resin. One-step putty wash impression was made in a custom-made open tray, and the cast was poured. Healing abutments were attached to the implants in master reference model and to the lab analogs in sample casts and analyzed using a coordinate measuring machine (CMM) for comparison. Descriptive statistics were done. Shapiro–Wilk test was done to check the normality, followed by parametric tests for comparisons. Intergroup comparison was performed using one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA), after which pair-wise comparison was made using Games-Howell post-hoc test. Results: Open tray impression copings splinted with materials of all four groups showed minimal variation in positions of multiple implants. Photopolymerized acrylic resin showed the least deviation from a master model for three-dimensional (3D) distance between implants 1 and 2 (3D_1_2), with a mean difference of 0.058 (p = 0.629); and also, between implants 1 and 4 viz 3D_1_4, the difference was least for photopolymerized resin to be 0.007 (p = 0.993). For distance 3D_1_3, there was least deviation of 0.102 (p = 0.001) for bite registration paste. Thus, photopolymerized resin followed by bite registration paste and nanocomposite resin performed comparable to and better than pattern resin blocks in the present study. Conclusion: Photopolymerized resin can be considered a promising and effective splinting material, saving clinical time and enhancing patient acceptance. It also eliminates the need for splinting, sectioning, and resplinting necessary in conventionally used pattern resin techniques.

PDF Share
  1. Awad MA, Locker D, Korner-Bitensky N, et al. Measuring the effect of intra-oral implant rehabilitation on health-related quality of life in a randomized controlled clinical trial. J Dent Res 2000;79(9):1659–1663. DOI: 10.1177/00220345000790090401
  2. Heydecke G, Thomason JM, Lund JP, et al. The impact of conventional and implant supported prostheses on social and sexual activities in edentulous adults results from a randomized trial 2 months after treatment. J Dent 2005;33(8):649–657. DOI: 10.1016/j.jdent.2005.01.003
  3. Cordaro L, Ercoli C, Rossini C, et al. Retrospective evaluation of complete-arch fixed partial dentures connecting teeth and implant abutments in patients with normal and reduced periodontal support. J Prosthet Dent 2005;94(4):313–320. DOI: 10.1016/j.prosdent.2005.08.007
  4. Assif D, Marshak B, Schmidt A. Accuracy of implant impression techniques. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 1996;11(2):216–222. PMID: 8666454.
  5. Albrektsson T, Jansson T, Lekholm U. Osseointegrated dental implants. Dent Clin North Am 1986;30(1):151–174. DOI: 10.1016/s0011-8532(22)02100-0
  6. Lee H, So JS, Hochstedler JL, et al. The accuracy of implant impressions: a systematic review. J Prosthet Dent 2008;100(4):285–291. DOI: 10.1016/S0022-3913(08)60208-5
  7. Burawi G, Houston F, Byrne D, et al. A comparison of the dimensional accuracy of the splinted and unsplinted impression techniques for the bone-lock implant system. J Prosthet Dent 1997;77(1):68–75. DOI: 10.1016/s0022-3913(97)70209-9
  8. Branemark PI, Zarb GA, Albrektsson T. Tissue-integrated prostheses: Osseointegration in clinical dentistry. Chicago: Quintessence; 1985.
  9. Misch CE. Available bone and dental implant treatment plans. Dental Implant Prosthetics-E-Book. 2014 Jul 21:315.
  10. Carr AB. A comparison of impression techniques for a five-implant mandibular model. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 1991;6(4):448–455. DOI: 10.1097/00008505-199200130-00017
  11. Phillips KM, Nicholls JI, Tsun Ma, et al. The accuracy of three implant impression techniques: a three-dimensional analysis. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 1994;9(5):533–540.
  12. Cabral LM, Guedes CG. Comparative analysis of 4 impression techniques for implants. Implant Dent 2007;16(2):187–194. DOI: 10.1097/ID.0b013e3180587b3f
  13. Vigolo P, Fonzi F, Majzoub Z, et al. An evaluation of impression techniques for multiple internal connection implant prostheses. J Prosthet Dent 2004;92(5):470–476. DOI: 10.1016/j.prosdent.2004.08.015
  14. Lee HJ, Lim YJ, Kim CW, et al. Accuracy of a proposed implant impression technique using abutments and metal framework. J Adv Prosthodont 2010;2(1):25–31. DOI: 10.4047/jap.2010.2.1.25
  15. Papazoglou E, Wee AG, Carr AB, et al. Accuracy of complete-arch implant impression made with occlusal registration material. J Prosthet Dent 2020;123(1):143–148. DOI: 10.1016/j.prosdent.2018.12.011
  16. Ongül D, Gökçen-Röhlig B, Şermet B, et al. A comparative analysis of the accuracy of different direct impression techniques for multiple implants. Aust Dent J 2012;57(2):184–189. DOI: 10.1111/j.1834-7819.2012.01685.x
  17. Selvaraj S, Dorairaj J, Mohan J, et al. Comparison of implant cast accuracy of multiple implant impression technique with different splinting materials: an in vitro study. J Indian Prosthodont Soc 2016;16(2):167–175. DOI: 10.4103/0972-4052.167937
  18. Nateghi M, Negahdari R, Molaei S, et al. Comparison of the accuracy of fixture-level implant impression making with different splinting techniques. Int J Dent 2021;2021(2):2959055. DOI: 10.1155/2021/2959055
  19. Chaudhary NK, Gulati M, Pawah S, et al. An in vitro study to assess the positional accuracy in multiple implants using different splinting materials in open-tray impression technique. Indian J Dent Sci 2021;13(2):108–117. DOI: 10.4103/IJDS.IJDS_202_20
  20. Yasar MN, Cetinsahin C, Bayar O, et al. Implant impression techniques using different materials and methods: a review. J Clin Diagn Res 2022;16(2):ZE12–ZE17. DOI: 10.7860/JCDR/2022/53057.16014
  21. Ibrahim TO, Ghuneim WA. Composite resin versus two different splinting techniques on evaluation of impression accuracy for dental implants. Life Sci J 2013;10(12s):1013–1018. ISSN: 1097-8135.
  22. Balamurugan T, Manimaran P, Evaluation of accuracy of direct transfer snapon impression coping closed tray impression technique and direct transfer open tray impression technique: an in vitro study. J Indian Prosthodont Soc 2013; 13(3):226–232. DOI: 10.1007/s13191-012-0141-x
  23. Khan SB, Geerts G. Determining the dimensional stability, fracture toughness and flexural strength of light-cured acrylic resin custom tray material. Eur J Prosthodont Restor Dent 2009;17(2):67–72. PMID: 19645307.
  24. Ercoli C, Geminiani A, Feng C, et al. The influence of verification jig on framework fit for nonsegmented fixed implant-supported complete denture. Clin Implant Dent Relat Res 2012;14 Suppl 1(s1):e188–e195. DOI: 10.1111/j.1708-8208.2011.00425.x
  25. Wee AG. Comparison of impression materials for direct multi-implant impressions. J Prosthet Dent 2000;83(2):323–331. DOI: 10.1016/s0022-3913(00)70136-3
  26. Baig MR. Multi-unit implant impression accuracy: a review of the literature. Quintessence Int 2014;45(1):39–51. DOI: 10.3290/j.qi.a30769
  27. Jemt T. Failures and complications in 391 consecutively inserted fixed prostheses supported by Brånemark implants in edentulous jaws: a study of treatment from the time of prosthesis placement to the first annual checkup. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 1991;6(3):270–276. PMID: 1813395.
  28. Carr AB. Comparison of impression techniques for a two-implant 15-degree divergent model. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 1992;7(4):468–475. PMID: 1820314.
  29. Saini HS, Jain S, Kumar S, et al. Evaluating the effect of different impression techniques and splinting methods on the dimensional accuracy of multiple implant impressions: an in vitro study. J Contemp Dent Pract 2018;19(8):1005–1012. DOI: 10.5005/jp-journals-10024-2373
PDF Share
PDF Share

© Jaypee Brothers Medical Publishers (P) LTD.