Author : Kent Jon Howell
Publisher :
ISBN 13 :
Total Pages : 41 pages
Book Rating : 4.:/5 (743 download)
Book Synopsis Accuracy of the Biomet 3i Encode® Robocast TM Technology Versus Conventional Implant Impression Techniques by : Kent Jon Howell
Download or read book Accuracy of the Biomet 3i Encode® Robocast TM Technology Versus Conventional Implant Impression Techniques written by Kent Jon Howell and published by . This book was released on 2011 with total page 41 pages. Available in PDF, EPUB and Kindle. Book excerpt: Abstract: Accuracy of implant master casts and the subsequent fit of implant restorations is an important and challenging factor for the implant restorative dentist. This study compared the accuracy of master casts referred to as a Robocast TM (Biomet 3i, West Palm Beach, FL), that contained implant analogs fabricated by means of a CADCAM technology known as the Encode® Impression System (Biomet 3i, West Palm Beach, FL). The Robocasts were compared to master casts fabricated with traditional implant impression techniques: transfer (closed-tray) and pick-up (open-tray) impression methods. Specifically, results were compared in parallel versus non-parallel implants, as well as individual implant sites. A stereolithographic replica of a human mandible, with teeth numbers 21-28 present, was fabricated. Posterior segments were edentulous. Four 4.0 x 10mm Biomet 3i Full Osseotite® Certain implants (Biomet 3i, West Palm Beach, FL) were placed in the posterior, 2 on each side; implants on one side were parallel to each other; implants on the other side diverged in the vertical plane by 30 degrees. Polyvinyl siloxane (PVS) impressions were made with CADCAM healing abutments, pick-up and transfer impression copings. Impression procedures were made with stock trays located in a standardized position. Implant analog master casts were fabricated for the closed-tray and open-tray techniques using a standardized protocol and including a reference sphere. The Robocast technology was used to position implant analogs for the CADCAM protocol. After generating the master cast, the measuring spheres were attached to the analogs, sprayed and scanned. Computerized measurements were made of the accuracy of the analog transfers in the master casts to the locations of the patient model implants and these measurements were compared statistically. Analysis was performed on each site individually as well as parallel versus non-parallel. The analysis on the parallel implants resulted in the following mean differences from the master cast: open-tray (O) = 19.3 ± 19.6 um, closed-tray (C) = 34.9 ± 22.1 um, and encode (E) = 86.5 ± 73.9 um. The analysis on the non-parallel implants resulted in the following mean differences from the master cast: O = 49.6 ± 57.8 um, C = 54.7 ± 59.5 um, and E = 122.9 ± 63.4 um. In the analysis of individual implant positions, the mean differences from the master in each test group were calculated. Site #18 produced the following values: C = 66.2 ± 80.4 um, O = 73.9 ± 74.9 um, E = 126.7 ± 73.9 um. Site #20 produced the following values: O = 25.3 ± 24.5 um, C = 43.2 ± 38.0 um, E = 119.0 ± 62.3 um. Site #29 produced the following values: O = 22.2 ± 27.0 um, C = 25.1 ± 7.2 um, E = 131.3 ± 82.5 um. Site #31 produced the following values: O = 16.4 ± 12.1 um, C = 44.8 ± 28.8 um, E = 41.7 ± 24.5 um. Within the non-parallel implant groups, the Encode impression/cast group was less accurate than the open-tray group (p
