Evaluación de las diferentes técnicas de impresión para implantes múltiples utilizando poliéster
Cargando...
Archivos
Fecha
2010
Autores
Profesor/a Guía
Facultad/escuela
Idioma
es
Título de la revista
ISSN de la revista
Título del volumen
Editor
Universidad Andrés Bello
Nombre de Curso
Licencia CC
Licencia CC
Resumen
El objetivo de este estudio in vitro fue comparar la exactitud, a nivel clínico, que nos proporcionan las técnicas de impresión más utilizadas para implantes múltiples. Material y Método: Se confeccionó un modelo maestro mandibular de poliuretano en el cual se instalaron 4 implantes, ubicados en forma paralela y perpendicular al plano oclusal; a partir de este modelo se tomaron 10 impresiones de cada técnica, y se confeccionaron llaves de yeso para comprobar la pasividad y ajuste de cada uno de los modelos obtenidos, este último parámetro se obtuvo a partir de la escala creada por Kallus y Bessing en 1994. Resultados: En cuanto al ajuste de la supraestructura para cada modelo obtenido a partir de las distintas técnicas de impresión se encontró una diferencia estadísticamente significativa (p<0.05) al aplicar el test de Chi-Cuadrado (p=0.02), en donde la técnica de impresión de cofias cuadradas ferulizadas y seccionadas fue superior al resto de las técnicas en estudio. En relación a la pasividad, y aplicando el mismo test estadístico, se obtuvo una diferencia estadísticamente significativa (p<0.05) en donde p=0.013, observando que la técnica de impresión con cofias cuadradas ferulizadas y seccionadas obtuvo los resultados más satisfactorios. Conclusiones: La técnica de impresión más exacta para implantes múltiples es la técnica de impresión con cofias cuadradas seccionadas. La técnica de impresión más imprecisa para implantes múltiples es la técnica de impresión con cofias autorroscantes. La llave de yeso es un excelente método clínico para verificar la exactitud de las distintas técnicas de impresión.
Purpose: The purpose of this in vitre study was to compare the accuracy at a clinical level that provide the most used impression techniques for multiple dental implants. Materials and Methods: A polyurethane mandibular master cast was fabricated. Four parallel dental implants were instaled perpendicular to the occlusal plane. Ten impression were taken of each technique and a plaster key was made to check the passivity and fit of each of the models obtained. This last parameter was obtained from the scale created by Kallus and Bessing in 1994. Results: Regarding the fit of the superstructure for each model obtained from the different impression techniques there were found a statistically significant difference (p < 0.05) with the Chi-square test (p=0.02) where the impression technique of squared copings splinted and sectioned was superior to the other techniques in study. In relation to the passivity, when applying the same statistical test, statistically significant difference was obtained (p < 0.05), with p=0.013, noting that the square coping splinted and sectioned technique obtained more satisfactory results. Conclusions: The most accurate impression technique for multiple implants is the sectioned square copings technique. The most imprecise technique for multiple implants is the tapping caps. The plaster key is an excellent clinical method to verify the accuracy of the different impression techniques.
Purpose: The purpose of this in vitre study was to compare the accuracy at a clinical level that provide the most used impression techniques for multiple dental implants. Materials and Methods: A polyurethane mandibular master cast was fabricated. Four parallel dental implants were instaled perpendicular to the occlusal plane. Ten impression were taken of each technique and a plaster key was made to check the passivity and fit of each of the models obtained. This last parameter was obtained from the scale created by Kallus and Bessing in 1994. Results: Regarding the fit of the superstructure for each model obtained from the different impression techniques there were found a statistically significant difference (p < 0.05) with the Chi-square test (p=0.02) where the impression technique of squared copings splinted and sectioned was superior to the other techniques in study. In relation to the passivity, when applying the same statistical test, statistically significant difference was obtained (p < 0.05), with p=0.013, noting that the square coping splinted and sectioned technique obtained more satisfactory results. Conclusions: The most accurate impression technique for multiple implants is the sectioned square copings technique. The most imprecise technique for multiple implants is the tapping caps. The plaster key is an excellent clinical method to verify the accuracy of the different impression techniques.
Notas
Tesis (Magíster en Odontología)
Palabras clave
Implantes Dentales, Técnica de Impresión, Materiales Dentales, Chile