dc.contributorUniversidade Estadual Paulista (Unesp)
dc.contributorUniversidade de São Paulo (USP)
dc.date.accessioned2014-05-27T11:21:12Z
dc.date.available2014-05-27T11:21:12Z
dc.date.created2014-05-27T11:21:12Z
dc.date.issued2004-12-01
dc.identifierImplant Dentistry, v. 13, n. 4, p. 358-366, 2004.
dc.identifier1056-6163
dc.identifierhttp://hdl.handle.net/11449/67966
dc.identifier10.1097/01.id.0000144509.58901.f7
dc.identifier2-s2.0-11444261183
dc.identifier4438747643373395
dc.identifier5335208171935802
dc.description.abstractThe accuracy of impressions that transfer the relationship of the implant to the metal framework of the prosthesis continues to be a problem. This study was designed to evaluate the accuracy of the transfer process under variable conditions with regard to implant analog angulations, impression materials, and techniques. Replicas (n = 60) of a metal matrix (control) containing four implants at 90°, 80°, 75°, and 65° in relation to the horizontal surface were obtained by using three impression techniques: T1 - indirect technique with conical copings in closed trays; T2 - direct technique with square copings in open trays; and T3 - square copings splinted with autopolymerizing acrylic resin; and four elastomers: P-polysulfide; I-polyether; A-addition silicone; and Z-condensation silicone. The values of the implant analog annulations were assessed by a profilometer to the nearest 0.017°, then submitted to analysis of variance for comparisons at significance of 5% (P < .05). For implant analog at 90°, the material A associated with T2 and material Z with T3 behaved differently (P < .05) from all groups. At 80°, all materials behaved differently (P < .01) with T1. At 75°, when T1 was associated, materials P and A showed similar behavior, as well as materials I and Z; however, P and A were different from I and Z (P < .01). When T3 was associated, all experimental groups behaved differently among them (P < .01). At 65°, the materials P and Z behaved differently (P < .01) from the control group with T1, T2, and T3; the materials I and A behaved differently from the control group (P < .01) when T1 and T2, respectively, were associated. The more perpendicular the implant analog annulation is in relation to the horizontal surface, the more accurate the impression. The best materials were material I and A and the most satisfactory technique was technique 3.
dc.languageeng
dc.relationImplant Dentistry
dc.relation1.307
dc.relation0,712
dc.rightsAcesso restrito
dc.sourceScopus
dc.subjectDental implants
dc.subjectDental impression materials
dc.subjectProstheses
dc.subjectTechniques
dc.subjectacrylic acid resin
dc.subjectelastomer
dc.subjectpolyether
dc.subjectsilicon
dc.subjectaccuracy
dc.subjectcontrolled study
dc.subjectstatistical significance
dc.subjecttemperature
dc.subjecttooth implantation
dc.subjecttooth prosthesis
dc.subjectDental Casting Technique
dc.subjectDental Implantation, Endosseous
dc.subjectDental Implants
dc.subjectDental Impression Materials
dc.subjectDental Impression Technique
dc.subjectDental Models
dc.subjectDental Prosthesis Design
dc.subjectDental Prosthesis, Implant-Supported
dc.subjectProsthesis Fitting
dc.subjectReproducibility of Results
dc.titleEvaluation of transfer impressions for osseointegrated implants at various angulations
dc.typeArtículos de revistas


Este ítem pertenece a la siguiente institución