Implant Impression Techniques using Different Materials and Methods: A Review

dc.contributor.authorYasar, Muhammed Necati
dc.contributor.authorCetinsahin, Cem
dc.contributor.authorBayar, Omer
dc.contributor.authorOzer, Hasan Yildrim
dc.date.accessioned2022-11-15T14:33:23Z
dc.date.available2022-11-15T14:33:23Z
dc.date.issued2022
dc.description.abstractDental implants have emerged as the treatment of choice in for restoring missing teeth in situations that require functional and aesthetic replacements. Reproduction of the position and orientation of intraoral implants by means of an accurate impression in the definitive cast is the first step in achieving a passively fitting multi-implant supported prosthesis, to decrease the mechanical and biological complication of the prosthesis. The accuracy of the impression making procedure in the usage of osseointegrated implants used for the rehabilitation of fully and partially edentulous patients is a very important factor for the long-term success of dental implants. It has been reported that the precision of implant impressions is affected by various factors such as impression materials, impression technique, splinting of impression posts, impression level and depth, as well as the angle of the implants. Also, the incompatibility between implant and prosthesis, which may occur as a result of an incorrect impression, may cause problems such as screw loosening, screw fracture, loss of osseointegration and even implant fracture. Today, there are many articles and reviews about implant impressions. Although the authors found consistent results in many studies, there are differences of opinion on some issues. In general, polyether and additional type silicones were found to be successful in the conventional impression technique. Digital impression technique, on the other hand, has been found as successful as conventional measurement techniques in some studies. Controversial results have been obtained about the number of implants and their angulation. In general, the direct open tray splinted impression method is recommended for four or more implants, while there was no difference between the direct or indirect method for three or less implants.en_US
dc.identifier.endpageZE17en_US
dc.identifier.issn2249-782Xen_US
dc.identifier.issue2en_US
dc.identifier.startpageZE12en_US
dc.identifier.urihttps://www.jcdr.net/articles/PDF/16014/53057_CE[Ra1]_F(KR)_PF1(TW_SS)_PFA(TW_KM)_PN(KM).pdf
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/11727/8117
dc.identifier.volume16en_US
dc.identifier.wos000758280800002en_US
dc.language.isoengen_US
dc.relation.isversionof10.7860/JCDR/2022/53057.16014en_US
dc.relation.journalJOURNAL OF CLINICAL AND DIAGNOSTIC RESEARCHen_US
dc.relation.publicationcategoryMakale - Uluslararası Hakemli Dergien_US
dc.rightsinfo:eu-repo/semantics/openAccessen_US
dc.subjectConventional impressionen_US
dc.subjectCustom trayen_US
dc.subjectDigital dentistryen_US
dc.subjectIntraoral digital impressionen_US
dc.subjectSlicone elastomersen_US
dc.titleImplant Impression Techniques using Different Materials and Methods: A Reviewen_US
dc.typearticleen_US

Files

Original bundle

Now showing 1 - 1 of 1
No Thumbnail Available
Name:
ds172.pdf
Size:
1.22 MB
Format:
Adobe Portable Document Format
Description:

License bundle

Now showing 1 - 1 of 1
No Thumbnail Available
Name:
license.txt
Size:
1.71 KB
Format:
Item-specific license agreed upon to submission
Description: