A Comparative Analysis of Master Casts Obtained using Different Surface Treatments on Impression Copings for Single Tooth Implant Replacement -An In vitro Study

• Main Authors: Surbhi Abrol, Archana Nagpal, Rupandeep Kaur Samra, Ramit Verma, Vishal Katna, Parikshit Gupt
• Format: Article
• Language: English
• Published: JCDR Research and Publications Private Limited 2017-08-01
• Series: Journal of Clinical and Diagnostic Research
• Subjects: internal hex; microrotation; single implant
• Online Access: https://jcdr.net/articles/PDF/10501/28372_CE(SY)_F(SS)_PF1_(SY_MJ_PY)_PFA(SY_SS).pdf

Introduction: Minor rotation of impression coping secured in the impression is an avoidable error that needs to be minimized to ensure precise positioning of implant analog in master cast. Aim: The aim of the study was to compare the precision in obtaining master casts by improving the stability of impression copings in the impression with the use of tray adhesive along various surface treatments to increase surface area and by mechanical locking. Materials and Methods: A total of 60 samples were made (15 samples for each group). A total of 15 samples for Group I were prepared with untreated impression copings, 15 samples for Group II with impression copings treated and modified by application of tray adhesive only. Group III includes 15 samples which were fabricated with impression copings modified by making four vertical grooves on surface of impression coping and coated with adhesive. Group IV had 15 samples which were fabricated with impression copings sandblasted with 50 µm aluminum oxide powder and coated with adhesive. Profile projector was used to evaluate the rotational accuracy of the implant analogs by comparing Molar Implant Angle (MIA) and Premolar Implant Angle (PIA) of test samples with reference model. One-way ANOVA and Student t-test were used to analyze the data. Results: One-way ANOVA didn’t show any significant differences for both MIA and PIA between the Groups I, II, III and IV. Student’s unpaired t-test revealed no significant difference in the mean MIA and mean PIA. Conclusion: Though results were statistically non-significant, all types of surface treatments of the impression copings showed more accurate transfer than those with no treatment. Sandblasted and adhesive coated impression copings showed minimum amount of rotation followed by those with vertical slots and adhesive coated impression copings.