leila payaminia

Some small defects may remain in the impression after making a two-step putty-light body impression. The aim of this study was to evaluate and compare the dimensional accuracy of 2-step and relined 2-step (3-step) putty-light body impressions.

In this in vitro study, 30 impressions were made with putty, light body, and extra-light body addition silicone materials using the 2-step and 3-step impression techniques (N=15). An epoxy resin master model was made duplicating a maxillary typodont with left first premolar and first molar teeth prepared with a shoulder finish line and truncated pyramidal-shaped indices in the mid-palate and third molar sites. In addition to creating a reference digital model by scanning the master model, 30 master casts were scanned to produce digital models. The anteroposterior (AP) and cross-sectional (CS) dimensional accuracy of the models were compared with the master model using linear measurements. Moreover, tooth size measurements were made and compared using the root mean square (RMS). Two-sample t-test was applied to analyze the data (α=0.05).

The mean AP and RMS differences between the two study groups were not significant (P>0.05). However, the CS difference between the two groups was significant (P<0.001), and the 3-step impression technique showed smaller discrepancies in comparison to the master model.

There was no significant difference in accuracy of the two techniques for single-unit and multiple-unit preparations. The 3-step impression technique had a higher CS dimensional accuracy.

Statement of the Problem: 

Some components of implant treatment are reusable. Therefore, possible changes during fixation, removal, and sterilization process should be tested. Many studies have examined the reuse of implant parts, but the impact of repeated use of scan bodies on the accuracy of implant position has not been well investigated.

The aim of this in vitro study was to compare the effect of repeated use of two different types of scan bodies on the accuracy of implant position.

In this in vitro experimental study, two acrylic resin maxillary models, each with two implant analogues inserted at the site of missing first and second molars were used. Two types of scan bodies including titanium and polyetheretherketone (PEEK) were used for digital impression. Then they were ten times removed and autoclaved for sterilization. The first scan was considered as a reference to be compared with the other next nine scans. Values of linear distance between two scan bodies, diameter changes of each scan body, and three-dimensional linear displacement (ΔR) were measured. These values were compared between the two types of scan bodies using t-test (α=.05). 

There was significant difference between titanium and PEEK scan bodies regarding inter-implant distance variation (p=.006) and diameter change (p< .001) in repeated use. However, for the ΔR, there was no significant difference between them (p= 0.759).

The results demonstrated that type of scan body could affect the accuracy of implant position transfer after repeated use. PEEK scan body performed better after 9 cycles of reuse in comparison with titanium scan body.