The Accuracy of an Implant Impression Technique Using Digitally Coded Healing Abutments
Version of Record online: 31 MAR 2011
© 2011 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.
Clinical Implant Dentistry and Related Research
Special Issue: Clinical Implant Dentistry and Related Research Prosthodontic Supplement 2012: Contemporary Insight Into Implant Prosthodontics
Volume 14, Issue Supplement s1, pages e30–e38, May 2012
How to Cite
Eliasson, A. and Örtorp, A. (2012), The Accuracy of an Implant Impression Technique Using Digitally Coded Healing Abutments. Clinical Implant Dentistry and Related Research, 14: e30–e38. doi: 10.1111/j.1708-8208.2011.00344.x
- Issue online: 10 MAY 2012
- Version of Record online: 31 MAR 2011
- impression coping;
- vinylpolysiloxane (VPS) impression material
Background: A healing abutment (Encode®) provided with digitally coded information on length and diameter on the top was launched in 2007. So far, no study has evaluated working cast fabrication using impressions of the coded abutments and analogue placement using a robot technique.
Purpose: To compare the accuracy of implant analogue placement in working casts using a robot technique and an impression of Encode healing abutments, with the traditional technique.
Materials and Methods: One acrylic master model was fabricated, provided with two groups of three implant analogues. Encode healing abutments were mounted on the test side and conventional pickup impression copings were inserted on the control side. Fifteen impressions were made with a vinylpolysiloxane material. Implant analogues were placed by a robot on the test side. The center point of each implant analogue fitting surface was measured with a laser measuring machine in the x-, y-, and z-axis, as were also the angular direction of the center axis and the position of the antirotational hex. Two-way analysis of variance was performed using SPSS 17.0; the statistical significance was set at p < .05.
Results: Mean center point deviation for the test and control side was 37.4 µm versus 18.5 µm (p = .001) in the x-axis, 47.3 µm versus 13.9 µm (p < .001) in the y-axis, and 35.0 µm versus 15.1 µm (p < .013) in the z-axis. Mean angle error was 0.41 degrees for the test and 0.14 degrees for the control side (p < .001). Mean rotation of the hexagon was 2.88 degrees for the test side and 1.82 degrees for controls (p < .001).
Conclusions: Both conventional and robot technique presented low levels of displacement of the implant analogues in all casts. The test technique was less precise, but the difference in accuracy was small, and both techniques are precise enough for single crowns and short-span, implant-supported fixed partial prostheses.