İmplant Üstü Protezlerde Konvansiyonel ve Dijital Ölçü Teknikleri

Protetik diş tedavisinde ölçü işlemi, diş ya da implantların ve ağız için dokuların negatif formunun elde edilerek alçı ya da farklı materyaller ile çalışma modellerinin elde edilmesindeki ilk aşamadır. Ölçü aşamasında kullanılan farklı ölçü maddeleri ile ölçü yöntemleri bazı hekimlere karmaşık gelerek hatalı ölçü işlemlerine neden olabilmektedir. Ölçü aşamasında meydana gelebilecek hatalar hem restorasyonların hem de implantların prognozunu etkilemektedir. Diş hekimliğinde dijitalleşme ile dijital ölçü ve Bilgisayar Destekli Tasarım/Bilgisayar Destekli Üretim (CAD/CAM) sistemlerinin kullanımı artmıştır. Bununla birlikte hekimlerin aklında ne zaman hangi ölçü tekniği uygulanması gerektiğiyle ilgiler sorular oluşmaya başlamıştır. Bu derlemenin yazılmasındaki amaç ölçü materyalleri ile implant üstü ölçü tekniklerini güncel literatür ışığında açıklamak ve ölçü tekniği seçeneklerini hekimlerin kullanımına sunmaktır.

Anahtar Kelimeler:

ölçü materyalleri, Silikonlar, ölçü teknikleri, implant-destekli protez

Conventional and Digital Impression Techniques in Implant Prosthetics

In prosthetic dental treatment, the impression process is the first step in obtaining the negative form of teeth or implants and tissues to obtain working models with plaster or different die materials. Different impression materials and impression methods which used in the impression stage can be found complicated by some clinicians and cause errors in impression procedures. Errors that may occur during the impression phase can affect the prognosis of both restorations and implants. With digitalization in dentistry, the use of digital impression and Computer Aided Design / Computer Aided Manufacturing (CAD / CAM) systems has increased. However, questions began to arise in the minds of clinicians about when and which impression technique should be applied. The purpose of writing this review is to explain impression materials and impression techniques in the light of current literature and to present impression technique options to the use of clinicians.

Keywords:

Impression Material, Implant-Supported Dental Prosthesis Silicones, impression techniques, dental, dental,

PDF

___

1. Richi MW, Kurtulmus-Yilmaz S, Ozan O. Comparison of the accuracy of different impression procedures in case of multiple and angulated implants. Head Face Med. 2020;16(1):1–12.
2. Kahramanoğlu E, Aslan YU, Özkan Y, Keskin Özyer E. İmplant Destekli Protetik Restorasyonlarda Kullanılan Ölçü Yöntemleri ve Materyalleri: Derleme. Eur J Res Dent. 2019;2(3):124–32.
3. Punj A, Bompolaki D, Garaicoa J. Dental Impression Materials and Techniques. Dent Clin North Am 2017;61(4):779–96.
4. Schulein TM. Significant events in the history of operative dentistry. J Hist Dent. 2005; Jul ;53(2):63-72.
5. Seyfioğlu Polat Z, Mutluay Ünal S, Nigiz R. CAD/CAM Uygulamaları. Türkiye Klin. 2018;33–9.
6. Albuha Al-Mussawi RM, Farid F. Computer-Based Technologies in Dentistry: Types and Applications. J Dent (Tehran) 2016;13(3):215–22.
7. Falcão Spina DR, da Costa RG, Correr GM, Rached RN. Scanning of root canal impression for the fabrication of a resin CAD-CAM-customized post-and-core. J Prosthet Dent. 2018; Aug;120(2):242-245.
8. Reitz CD, Clark NP. The setting of vinyl polysiloxane and condensation silicone putties when mixed with gloved hands. J Am Dent Assoc. 1988; Mar;116(3):371-5.
9. Noonan JE, Goldfogel MH, Lambert RL. Inhibited set of the surface of addition silicones in contact with rubber dam. Oper Dent. 1985; Spring; 10(2):46-8.
10. Walker MP. Dental Materials and Their Selection. J Prosthodont 2003; 12: 152-153.
11. Enkling N, Bayer S, Jöhren P, Mericske-Stern R. Vinylsiloxanether: a new impression material. Clinical study of implant impressions with vinylsiloxanether versus polyether materials. Clin Implant Dent Relat Res. 2012 Mar;14(1):144-51.
12. Nassar U, Oko A, Adeeb S, El-Rich M, Flores-Mir C. An in vitro study on the dimensional stability of a vinyl polyether silicone impression material over a prolonged storage period. J Prosthet Dent. 2013 Mar;109(3):172-8.
13. Pandita A, Jain T, Yadav NS, Feroz SMA, Pradeep, Diwedi A. Evaluation and comparison of dimensional accuracy of newly introduced elastomeric impression material using 3D laser scanners: An in vitro study. J Contemp Dent Pract. 2013; Mar 1;14(2):265-8.
14. García-Martínez I, CáceresMonllor D, Solaberrieta E, Ferreiroa A, Pradíes G. Accuracy of digitization obtained from scannable and nonscannable elastomeric impression materials. J Prosthet Dent 2020;1–7.
15. Kenneth Anusavice Chiayi Shen H. Ralph Rawls. Chapter 8 – Impression Materials. Phillips’ Sci Dent Mater 2013;151–81.
16. Sakaguchi R, Powers J. Craig’s Restorative Dental Materials. Craig’s Restorative Dental Materials. 2012.
17. Aktöre H, Kurtulmuş-Yilmaz S. The evaluation of factors that affect the accuracy of implant impressions. Cumhur Dent J. 2015;18(2):214–27.
18. Lee SJ, Cho SB. Accuracy of five implant impression technique: Effect of splinting materials and methods. J Adv Prosthodont. 2011; 3(4):177-185.
19. Lee H, So JS, Hochstedler JL, Ercoli C. The accuracy of implant impressions: A systematic review. J Prosthet Dent. 2008;100(4):285–91.
20. Chee W, Jivraj S. Impression techniques for implant dentistry. Br Dent J. 2006 Oct 7;201(7):429-32.
21. Richi W. Digital Comparison of the Accuracy of Implant and Abutment level impression Techniques in case of Multiple Angulated Implants [thesis]. Near East University; 2020.
22. Ismail IA, Alhajj MN. Accuracy of different impression techniques for multiunit implant restoration: A qualitative in vitro study. J Prosthet Dent 2020;124(6):729.
23. Dikmen M. Ağıziçi Dĳital Tarayıcılara Güncel Bir Bakış. Turkiye Klin. J Prosthodont-Special Topics 2018;4(1):37-41
24. Richert R, Goujat A, Venet L, Viguie G, Viennot S, Robinson P, Farges JC, Fages M, Ducret M. Intraoral Scanner Technologies: A Review to Make a Successful Impression. J Healthc Eng. 2017; 2017: 8427595. 25. Ünalan Değirmenci B, Eskitaşçıoğlu M NR. Geçmişten Günümüze CAD/CAM. Türkiye Klin. 2018;1:18–23.
26. Alghazzawi TF. Advancements in CAD/CAM technology: Options for practical implementation. J Prosthodont Res 2016;60(2):72–84.
27. Beuer F, Schweiger J, Edelhoff D. Digital dentistry: An overview of recent developments for CAD/CAM generated restorations. Br Dent J. 2008;204(9):505–11.
28. Tamim H, Skjerven H, Ekfeldt A, Rønold HJ. Clinical evaluation of CAD/CAM metal-ceramic posterior crowns fabricated from intraoral digital impressions. Int J Prosthodont. 2014 Jul-Aug;27(4):331-7.
29. Mangano F, Gandolfi A, Luongo G, Logozzo S. Intraoral scanners in dentistry: A review of the current literature. BMC Oral Health. 2017;17(1):1–11.
30. Ting-shu S, Jian S. Intraoral Digital Impression Technique: A Review. J Prosthodont. 2015; Jun;24(4):313-21. 31. Zimmermann M, Mehl A, Mörmann WH, Reich S. Intraoral scanning systems - a current overview. Int J Comput Dent. 2015; 18(2):101-29.
32. Martin CB, Chalmers E V., McIntyre GT, Cochrane H, Mossey PA. Orthodontic scanners: What’s available? J Orthod. 2015; Jun;42(2):136-43. doi: 10.1179/1465313315Y.0000000001. Epub 2015 May 4. Erratum in: J Orthod. 2015;42(4):355.
33. Patel N. Integrating Three-Dimensional Digital Technologies for Comprehensive Implant Dentistry. J Am Dent Assoc. 2010; Jun;141
34. Kümbüloğlu Ö. Geçmişten Günümüze Ölçü Maddeleri ve Yöntemleri. Turkiye Klin J Prosthodont Top. 2018;4(1):51–6.
35. Bilmenoglu C, Cilingir A, Geckili O, Bilhan H, Bilgin T. In vitro comparison of trueness of 10 intraoral scanners for implant-supported complete-arch fixed dental prostheses. J Prosthet Dent 2020;1–6.
36. Ender A, Mehl A. Accuracy of complete-Arch dental impressions: A new method of measuring trueness and precision. J Prosthet Dent. 2013; Feb;109(2):121-8.
37. Logozzo S, Zanetti EM, Franceschini G, Kilpelä A, Mäkynen A. Recent advances in dental optics - Part I: 3D intraoral scanners for restorative dentistry. Opt Lasers Eng 2014;54:203–21.
38. Mizumoto RM, Yilmaz B. Intraoral scan bodies in implant dentistry: A systematic review. J Prosthet Dent 2018;120(3):343–52.
39. Jahn D. Scan Body For Determinatıon of Positoning and Orientation Of Dental Implant. [patent].2014.
40. Logozzo S, Kilpelä A, Mäkynen A, Zanetti EM, Franceschini G. Recent advances in dental optics - Part II: Experimental tests for a new intraoral scanner. Opt Lasers Eng. 2014;54:187–96.
41. Piedra-Cascón W, Methani MM, Quesada-Olmo N, Jiménez-Martínez MJ, Revilla-León M. Scanning accuracy of nondental structured light extraoral scanners compared with that of a dental-specific scanner. J Prosthet Dent 2020;1–5.
42. Persson A, Andersson M, Oden A, Sandborgh-Englund G. A three-dimensional evaluation of a laser scanner and a touch-probe scanner. J Prosthet Dent. 2006; Mar;95(3):194-200.
43. Chan DCN, Chung AKH, Haines J, Yau EHT, Kuo CC. The accuracy of optical scanning: Influence of convergence and die preparation. Oper Dent. 2011; Sep-Oct;36(5):486-91.
44. Baig MR. Multi-unit implant impression accuracy: A review of the literature. Quintessence Int (Berl). 2014;45(1):39–51.
45. Heller H, Arieli A, Beitlitum I, Pilo R, Levartovsky S. Load-bearing capacity of zirconia crowns screwed to multi-unit abutments with and without a titanium base: An in vitro pilot study. Materials (Basel). 2019;12(19).
46. Alikhasi M, Siadat H, Monzavi A, Momen-Heravi F. Three-dimensional accuracy of implant and abutment level impression techniques: Effect on marginal discrepancy. J Oral Implantol. 2011;37(6):649–57.
47. Roig E, Álvarez-Maldonado N, Garza LC, Vallés M, Espona J, Roig M. Impact of design and length on the accuracy of closed tray transfer copings. J Clin Exp Dent. 2019;11(8):e707–12.
48. Sabouhi M, Bajoghli F, Dakhilalian M, Beygi A, Abolhasani M. Effects of impression coping design, impression technique, and dental undercuts on the accuracy of implant impressions assessed by 3-dimensional optical scanning: An in vitro study. Implant Dent. 2016;25(2):238–46.
49. Monaco C, Scheda L, Baldissara P, Zucchelli G. Implant Digital Impression in the Esthetic Area. J Prosthodont. 2019; Jun;28(5):536-540.
50. Joda T, Wittneben JG, Brägger U. Digital implant impressions with the “Individualized Scanbody Technique” for emergence profile support. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2014; Mar;25(3):395-397.
51. Alikhasi M, Siadat H, Nasirpour A, Hasanzade M. Three-Dimensional Accuracy of Digital Impression versus Conventional Method: Effect of Implant Angulation and Connection Type. Int J Dent. 2018; Jun 4;2018:3761750.
52. Gupta S, Narayan AI, Balakrishnan D. In Vitro Comparative Evaluation of Different Types of Impression Trays and Impression Materials on the Accuracy of Open Tray Implant Impressions: A Pilot Study. Int J Dent. 2017;2017:6306530. doi: 10.1155/2017/6306530. Epub 2017 Feb 27.
53. Ozcelik T, Ozcan I OO. Digital Evaluation of the Dimensional Accuracy of Four Different Implant Impression Techniques. Niger J Clin Pract. 2018;21(10):1247–53.
54. Lee SJ, Kim SW, Lee JJ, Cheong CW. Comparison of intraoral and extraoral digital scanners: Evaluation of surface topography and precision. Dent J. 2020;8(2).
55. Wolfart S, Yilmaz B. A technique for facilitating open-tray implant impressions. J Prosthet Dent. 2019; Oct;122(4):417-419. doi: 10.1016/j.prosdent.2019.06.017. Epub 2019 Sep 24.
56. Schmidt A, Häussling T, Rehmann P, Schaaf H, Wöstmann B. Accuracy of various impression materials and methods for two implant systems: An effect size study. J Prosthodont Res. 2018 Apr;62(2):245-251. doi: 10.1016/j.jpor.2017.10.004. Epub 2017 Nov 27. PMID: 29191609.
57. Kurtulmus-Yilmaz S, Ozan O, Ozcelik TB, Yagiz A. Digital evaluation of the accuracy of impression techniques and materials in angulated implants. J Dent. 2014 Dec;42(12):1551-9. doi: 10.1016/j.jdent.2014.10.008. Epub 2014 Oct 23. PMID: 25446736.
58. Arcuri L, Pozzi A, Lio F, Rompen E, Zechner W, Nardi A. Influence of implant scanbody material, position and operator on the accuracy of digital impression for complete-arch: A randomized in vitro trial. J Prosthodont Res. 2020;64(2):128–36. doi:10.1016/j.jpor.2019.06.001