Impact of reuse of dental implant analogs on impression accuracy

Year 2025, Volume: 26 Issue: 1, 94 - 100, 20.03.2025

Sergen Deniz , Mustafa Zortuk , Taha Yaşar Manav

https://doi.org/10.69601/meandrosmdj.1590982

Abstract

Introduction: This study aimed to examine the impact of repeated use of different implant impression analogs on the accuracy of the resulting impressions.
Materials and Methods: Implant bodies from three brands (Group SA: Straumann, Switzerland; Group DA: Dio Implant, South Korea; Group MA: Mode Implant, Turkey) were used to create master models. Five reference casts were then fabricated for each brand (n=5) from these master models. Ten impressions were taken from each reference cast using the same analogs, which were sterilized between each impression. Both reference and working casts were digitized with a three-dimensional scanner. The working casts were aligned with their respective reference casts using software (Geomagic, USA). Repeated-measures ANOVA compared groups, while one-way ANOVA compared impressions within each group. Multiple comparisons utilized Bonferroni, Tukey’s HSD, and Tamhane's T2 tests, with significance set at P<0.05.
Results: The RMS value for Group SA was 0.002 mm for the first impression, while the first impression RMS values for the other two groups were 0.04 mm and 0.03 mm, respectively. By the tenth impression, the RMS value for Group SA had increased to 0.08 mm, while the tenth impression RMS values for Groups DA and MA had reached 0.14 mm. Group SA demonstrated statistically significant differences after the third impression, whereas Groups DA and MA exhibited significant differences after the first impression.
Conclusions: The results of this in vitro study demonstrated that repeated use of the same implant impression analog had a negative impact on impression accuracy.

Keywords

dental implants, impression technic, dental prosthesis

References

• 1. Wang Y, Bäumer D, Ozga AK, Körner G, Bäumer A. Patient satisfaction and oral health-related quality of life 10 years after implant placement. BMC Oral Health. 2021 Dec;21(1):30.
• 2. Katsoulis J, Takeichi T, Sol Gaviria A, Peter L, Katsoulis K. Misfit of implant prostheses and its impact on clinical outcomes. Definition, assessment and a systematic review of the literature. Eur J Oral Implant. 2017;10(Suppl 1):121–38.
• 3. Moreira AHJ, Rodrigues NF, Pinho ACM, Fonseca JC, Vilaça JL. Accuracy Comparison of Implant Impression Techniques: A Systematic Review. Clin Implant Dent Relat Res [Internet]. 2015 Oct [cited 2024 Oct 31];17(S2). Available from: https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/cid.12310
• 4. Wee AG. Comparison of impression materials for direct multi-implant impressions. J Prosthet Dent. 2000;83(3):323–31.
• 5. Lee H, So JS, Hochstedler JL, Ercoli C. The accuracy of implant impressions: a systematic review. J Prosthet Dent. 2008;100(4):285–91.
• 6. Straumann. Instructions for Use: Straumann Impression Components [Internet]. 2024 [cited 2024 Oct 31]. Available from: https://ifu.straumann.com/STMN/GB/STMNPortfolio?keycode=7630031746719
• 7. Yalavarthy R, Alla J, Kalluri S, Mahadevan S, Kumar S, Ronanki S. Effect of multiple reuse of commonly used implant analogs on the changes in the distance between internal threads: An in vitro study. J Indian Prosthodont Soc. 2022;22(1):48.
• 8. Hashemi AM, Hasanzadeh M, Payaminia L, Alikhasi M. Effect of Repeated Use of Different Types of Scan Bodies on Transfer Accuracy of Implant Position. J Dent. 2023 Dec 1;24(4):410–6.
• 9. Sawyers J, Baig M, ElMasoud B. Effect of Multiple Use of Impression Copings and Scanbodies on Implant Cast Accuracy. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2019 Jul;34(4):891–8.
• 10. Mangano FG, Veronesi G, Hauschild U, Mijiritsky E, Mangano C. Trueness and precision of four intraoral scanners in oral implantology: a comparative in vitro study. PLoS One. 2016;11(9):e0163107.
• 11. Jemt T, Hjalmarsson L. In Vitro Measurements of Precision of Fit of Implant‐Supported Frameworks. A Comparison between “Virtual” and “Physical” Assessments of Fit Using Two Different Techniques of Measurements. Clin Implant Dent Relat Res [Internet]. 2012 May [cited 2024 Oct 19];14(s1). Available from: https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1708-8208.2011.00416.x
• 12. Amin S, Weber HP, Finkelman M, El Rafie K, Kudara Y, Papaspyridakos P. Digital vs. conventional full‐arch implant impressions: a comparative study. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2017 Nov;28(11):1360–7.
• 13. Younis O. The effects of sterilization techniques on the properties of intracanal instruments. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol. 1977;43(1):130–4.
• 14. Unverdorben M, Quaden R, Werner C, Bloss P, Degenhardt R, Ackermann H, et al. Change of the mechanical properties of two different balloon catheters with increasing numbers of cycles of resterilization. Catheter Cardiovasc Interv. 2003 Jan;58(1):29–33.
• 15. Yang M, Deng X, Zhang Z, Julien M, Pelletier F, Desaulniers D, et al. Are intraaortic balloons suitable for reuse? A survey study of 112 used intraaortic balloons. Artif Organs. 1997;21(2):121–30.
• 16. Gorokhovsky V, Heckerman B, Watson P, Bekesch N. The effect of multilayer filtered arc coatings on mechanical properties, corrosion resistance and performance of periodontal dental instruments. Surf Coat Technol. 2006;200(18–19):5614–30.
• 17. Pernier C, Grosgogeat B, Ponsonnet L, Benay G, Lissac M. Influence of autoclave sterilization on the surface parameters and mechanical properties of six orthodontic wires. Eur J Orthod. 2005;27(1):72–81.
• 18. Aldosari AAM. Does Steam Autoclaving Affect the Accuracy of Implant Impression Systems? J Biomater Tissue Eng. 2014 Jul 1;4(7):550–4.
• 19. Laskar P, Mansuri AH, Patel S, Kewalramani C, Sutradhar W, Karpathak S, et al. Alterations in internal threads of implant analog of different materials after multiple reuse. Bioinformation. 2024 Jun 30;20(6):695–9.
• 20. Junker B. Corrosion in bioprocessing applications. Bioprocess Biosyst Eng. 2009;32:1–29.
• 21. Tamilselvi S, Raman V, Rajendran N. Corrosion behaviour of Ti–6Al–7Nb and Ti–6Al–4V ELI alloys in the simulated body fluid solution by electrochemical impedance spectroscopy. Electrochimica Acta. 2006 Nov 12;52(3):839–46.
• 22. López MF, Jiménez JA, Gutiérrez A. Corrosion study of surface-modified vanadium-free titanium alloys. Electrochimica Acta. 2003 Apr;48(10):1395–401.
• 23. Ma T, Nicholls JI, Rubenstein JE. Tolerance measurements of various implant components. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 1997;12(3).
• 24. Assuncao WG, Gennari Filho H, Zaniquelli O. Evaluation of transfer impressions for osseointegrated implants at various angulations. Implant Dent. 2004;13(4):358–66.
• 25. Richi MW, Kurtulmus-Yilmaz S, Ozan O. Comparison of the accuracy of different impression procedures in case of multiple and angulated implants: Accuracy of impressions in multiple and angulated implants. Head Face Med. 2020 Dec;16(1):9