Tam Dişsiz Hastaların İmplantüstü Protezlerle Rehabilitasyonunda Kullanılan Geleneksel Ölçü Maddelerinin Boyutsal Stabilitesinin Değerlendirilmesi

Öz

Amaç: Bu çalışmanın amacı, dişsiz üst çene arkına yerleştirilen 5 implantın kapalı ölçü kaşığıyla alınan ölçülerde ölçü maddesinin ölçü doğruluğuna etkisini değerlendirmektir. Materyal ve Metod: Dişsiz üst çene arkı ve ölçü kaşıkları otopolimerizan akrilik reçineden üretilmiştir. İmplantları temsil eden analoglar dişsiz üst çene modelinde orta hatta, her iki tarafta kanin bölgesine ve birinci molar bölgelerine yerleştirilmiştir. Çalışma 4 gruptan oluşmaktadır (n=10). Çalışma grupları şu şekildedir: grup C1 polivinil siloksan (Elite HD+ Tepsi Malzemesi; Zhermack İtalya); C2 polivinil siloksan (Hydrorise Implant Heavy&Light NS; Zhermack, İtalya); C3 kondensasyon silikonu (Zetaplus Putty ve Oranwash L; Zhermack, İtalya) ve C4 polieter (3M ESPE (Soft) Monophase, ABD). Geleneksel ölçüler bu çalışma için hazırlanan bireysel kaşıklarla alınmış ve tip4 alçıdan modeller elde edilmiştir. Bu modeller laboratuvar tipi tarayıcıyla taranmış ve ölçümler yapılmıştır. Ölçümler SPSS 27 programı kullanılarak tek yönlü ANOVA analizine tabi tutulmuştur (p=0,05). Bulgular: Tek yönlü ANOVA analizine göre sıfır hipotezi reddedilmiştir yani gruplar birbirinden farklı bulunmuştur. %99,2 anlamlılık düzeyinde Grup 4’ün diğer gruplardan farklı özelliklere sahip olduğu belirlenmiştir. Sonuç: Polivinil siloksan ölçü malzemesi, implant destekli protezlerin ölçüleri için güvenilir sonuçlar sağlar. Sertlik ve polimerizasyon büzülmesinin polieter ölçü malzemesinin doğruluğunu azalttığı düşünülmektedir.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Dental implant
• Geleneksel Ölçü Masddeleri
• boyutsal stabilite ve doğruluk

Dimensional Accuracy of Conventional Impression Materials on Full-Arch Implant Impression

Öz

Objective The purpose of this in vitro study was to compare conventional impression materials for close tray implant impressions of maxillary full arch with 5 implants. Material and Method The edentulous maxilla model and custom impression trays were fabricated from auto-polymerizing acrylic resin. 5 implant analogs (Moment Dental Implant Systems, Turkey) representing implants were placed in the midline on the edentulous maxilla model, on both sides canine and first molar region. The study consisted of 4 groups(n=10). Study groups were as follows: group C1 polyvinyl siloxane (Elite HD+ Tray Material; Zhermack Italy); C2 polyvinyl siloxane (Hydrorise Implant Heavy&Light NS; Zhermack, Italy); C3 condensation silicone (Zetaplus Putty and Oranwash L; Zhermack, Italy) and C4 polyether (3M ESPE (Soft) Monophase, USA). Conventional impressions were performed with custom-made close trays and casts were made by type IV dental stone. Casts were scanned with the laboratory-type scanner. Whether the data of four separate groups showed a normal distribution was analyzed at the significance level (p = 0.05) using one-way ANOVA analysis using the SPSS 27 program. Results According to one-way ANOVA analysis, the null hypothesis was rejected because the significant value was greater than 0.05, meaning one of the groups was different from the other. At the 99.2% significance level, it was determined that Group 4 had different characteristics from the other groups. Conclusion Polyvinyl siloxane impression material provides reliable results for impressions of implant-supported prostheses. Rigidity and polymerization shrinkage are thought to reduce the accuracy of polyether impression material.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Dental implant
• conventional impression material
• Dimentional accuracy

Kaynakça

1. 1. Blatz MB, Conejo J. 2019.TheCurrentState of ChairsideDigitalDentistryandMaterials. DentClin North Am, 63(2):175-197.
2. 2. Schmidt A, Wöstmann B, Schlenz MA. 2022.Accuracy of digitalimplantimpressions in clinicalstudies: A systematicreview. Clin Oral ImplantsRes, 33(6):573-585.
3. 3. Tabesh M, Alikhasi M, Siadat H. 2018. A Comparison of implantimpressionprecision: Differentmaterialsandtechniques. J ClinExpDent, 10(2):e151-e157.
4. 4. Tohme H, Lawand G, Chmielewska M, Makhzoume J. 2023.Comparisonbetweenstereophotogrammetric, digital, andconventionalimpressiontechniques in implant-supportedfixedcompletearchprostheses: An in vitrostudy. J ProsthetDent, 129(2):354-362.
5. 5. Alsharbaty MHM, Alikhasi M, Zarrati S, Shamshiri AR. 2019. A ClinicalComparativeStudy of 3-Dimensional AccuracybetweenDigitalandConventionalImplantImpressionTechniques. J Prosthodont, 28(4):e902-e908.
6. 6. Alikhasi M, Siadat H, Nasirpour A, Hasanzade M. 2018. Three-DimensionalAccuracy of DigitalImpressionversusConventionalMethod: Effect of ImplantAngulationand Connection Type. Int J Dent, 2018:3761750.
7. 7. Siadat H, Saeidi Z, Alikhasi M, Zeighami S. 2018.Comparativeevaluation of theeffect of impressionmaterialsandtrays on theaccuracy of angulatedimplantsimpressions. J ClinExpDent, 1;10(11):e1096-e1102.
8. 8. Punj A, Bompolaki D, Garaicoa J. 2017.DentalImpressionMaterialsandTechniques. DentClin North Am, 61(4):779-796.

9. 9. Akalin ZF, Ozkan YK, Ekerim A. 2013. Effects of implantangulation, impressionmaterial, andvariation in archcurvaturewidth on implant transfer model accuracy. Int J Oral MaxillofacImplants, 28(1):149-57.
10. 10. Flügge T, van der Meer WJ, Gonzalez BG, Vach K, Wismeijer D, Wang P. 2018.Theaccuracy of differentdentalimpressiontechniquesforimplant-supporteddentalprostheses: A systematicreviewand meta-analysis. Clin Oral ImplantsRes, 16:374-392.
11. 11. Papazoglou E, Wee AG, Carr AB, Urban I, Margaritis V. 2020. Accuracy of complete-archimplantimpressionmadewithocclusalregistrationmaterial. J ProsthetDent, 123(1):143-148.
12. 12. Baldissara P, Koci B, Messias AM, Meneghello R, Ghelli F, Gatto MR, Ciocca L. 2021.Assessment of impressionmaterialaccuracy in complete-archrestorations on fourimplants. J ProsthetDent, 126(6):763-771.
13. 13. Bohner L, Hanisch M, De Luca Canto G, Mukai E, Sesma N, Neto PT. 2019.Accuracy of CastsFabricatedbyDigitalandConventionalImplantImpressions. J Oral Implantol, 45(2):94-99.
14. 14. Alshawaf B, Weber HP, Finkelman M, El Rafie K, Kudara Y, Papaspyridakos P. 2018.Accuracy of printedcastsgeneratedfromdigitalimplantimpressionsversusstonecastsfromconventionalimplantimpressions: A comparative in vitrostudy. Clin Oral ImplantsRes, 29(8):835-842.
15. 15. Papaspyridakos P, Vazouras K, Chen YW, Kotina E, Natto Z, Kang K, Chochlidakis K. 2020.DigitalvsConventionalImplantImpressions: A SystematicReviewand Meta-Analysis. J Prosthodont, 29(8):660-678.
16. 16. Amin S, Weber HP, Finkelman M, El Rafie K, Kudara Y, Papaspyridakos P. 2017. Digital and traditional full arch implant measurements: a comparative study. Clin Oral Implants Res, 28(11):1360-1367.