Abstract ▼ AI-Helper

The purpose of this study was to compare the accuracy between future impression and abutment impression using strain gauges. The master model used in this study was a partially edentulous mandibular metal cast with two fixture analogs on both sides. On the left, two future analogs were parallel, whe...

The purpose of this study was to compare the accuracy between future impression and abutment impression using strain gauges. The master model used in this study was a partially edentulous mandibular metal cast with two fixture analogs on both sides. On the left, two future analogs were parallel, whereas right side, posterior future analog exhibiting a 15-degree lingual inclination. From master cast, 10 impressions were made for each of the three impression methods. The master frameworks was fabricated on the master model, and two-element strain gauge was attached to a master framework. The master framework was seated on each cast, and gold screws were tightened to 10 Ncm using a torque controller AI-1600 strain measurement system was used for strain measuring. Impression methods studied were : Group 1:abutment impression Group 2:fixture impression Group 3:combined impression (anterior:fixture impression, posterior:abutment impression) The results were as followed. 1. The strain values on X-axis and Y-axis according to the three impression methods showed no significant difference. 2. The strain values on parallel and angulated groups according to the three impression methods showed no significant difference. 3. The parallel group exhibited significantly higher accuracy in adaptation than angulated group for all experimental groups (p<0.05). In conclusion, it is considered that accuracy of implant prostheses is more affected by implant angulation than impression methods.