A comparative analysis of the accuracy of different direct impression techniques for multiple implants

Abstract

Background: The aim of this study was to compare the accuracy of different direct implant impression techniques for edentulous arches with multiple implants. Methods: Five experimental groups (n = 5) were assembled. Experimental models were created by a direct splinted technique (EG2 to EG5) and a non‐splinted technique (EG1). In EG2 and EG3 synOcta impression copings were splinted with an acrylic resin bar, and in EG4 and EG5 with a light‐curing composite resin bar. In EG3 and EG5 the resin bars were sectioned, while the other experimental groups were not. Three‐dimensional discrepancies were measured by a computerized coordinate measuring machine. Distortion values among the groups were analysed using one‐way repeated measures ANOVA. The post hoc Tukey’s test was then performed for multiple comparisons. Results: The highest accuracy was obtained in EG2 (mean deviation: 12.70 μm). The acrylic bars demonstrated less deviation (12.70 μm and 22.71 μm) from the master model than the light‐curing composite resin groups and the non‐splinted group (41.09 μm). The post hoc Tukey’s test showed no significant difference among the groups when the effect of splint design on accuracy was investigated. Conclusions: For situations where impressions of multiple implants are to be made, splinting impression copings with acrylic resin demonstrate superior results than the non‐splinted technique and splinting with light‐curing composite.