7/28/2019 1-s2.0-S0022391312601115-main
1/1
83August 2012
Hosseini et al
49.DeLong R, Sakaguchi RL, Douglas WH,Pintado MR. The wear of
dental amalgamin an artificial mouth: a clinical correlation.Dent
Mater 1985;1:238-42.
50.Guess PC, Zhang Y, Kim JW, Rekow ED,Thompson VP. Damage and
reliability ofY-TZP after cementation surface treatment.J Dent Res
2010;89:592-6
Corresponding author:Dr Mandana HosseiniDepartment of Oral
RehabilitationSchool of DentistryFaculty of Health
SciencesUniversity of CopenhagenNrre All 20DK-2200 Copenhagen
NDENMARKFax: +0045-3532-6505E-mail: [email protected]
AcknowledgmentsThe authors thank Astra Tech (Mlendal,Sweden),
KaVo Everest (Biberach, Germany),Dansk Selskab for Oral
Implantology (Copen-hagen, Denmark), and the FORSKU Founda-tion
(DTF, Copenhagen, Denmark) for financialsupport. The authors
gratefully acknowledgeGert Ravnholt, DDS, PhD, for development
ofthe cyclic loading equipment; Ali Reza Sahafi,DDS, PhD, for
introduction to the cyclic load-ing machine; and Lene Theil
Skovgaard, Associ-
ate Professor, for statistical advice.
Copyright 2012 by the Editorial Council forThe Journal of
Prosthetic Dentistry.
Noteworthy Abstracts of the Current Literature
Eect o splinted and nonsplinted impression techniques on the
accuracy o ft o fxed
implant prostheses in edentulous patients: a comparative
study
Papaspyridakos P, Lal K, White GS, Weber HP, Gallucci GO.Int J
Oral Maxillofac Implants 2011;26:1267-72.
Purpose:The effect of different implant impression techniques on
the accuracy of casts has been investigated mostly
in vitro, and clinically relevant evidence is scarce. The
purpose of this study was to investigate the effect of implant
impression techniques-specically, splinted versus nonsplinted-on
the accuracy of t of xed implant prostheses in
edentulous patients.
Materials and methods: This clinical study included 12
edentulous patients (13 edentulous arches). All patients
hadundergone computer-guided, prosthetically driven implant
surgery. Splinted (with acrylic resin) and nonsplinted
pickup implant impression techniques were used to generate two
different casts. Intraoral verication jigs were made
to fabricate a third index cast (prosthesis fabrication cast);
these made up a control group. All patients were deni-
tively rehabilitated with one-piece zirconia prostheses. The
accuracy of t of each prosthesis was evaluated indirectly
by examining them clinically and radiographically while they
were t on the generated casts.
Results: Of the 13 splinted casts, 12 presented with accurate
clinical t when the zirconia prosthesis was seated on its
respective cast. Only 6 of the 13 nonsplinted casts showed
accurate clinical t. The zirconia prostheses t accurately
on all respective casts of the control group (prosthesis
fabrication cast) as well as intraorally. The differences
between
the test groups and between the nonsplinted and control groups
were statistically signicant. No statistically signi-
cant differences were found between the splinted and control
groups.
Conclusion:There is clinical evidence that the splinted
impression technique generates more accurate implant impres-
sions and master casts than the nonsplinted technique for
complete-arch, one-piece xed prostheses.
Reprinted with permission from Quintessence Publishing.
