MATERIALS AND METHODS: 18 patients were rehabilitated with maxillary CD opposing mandibular IRO, and 4 patients were prescribed with conventional CD. Cone beam computed tomography (CBCT) scans of the maxilla were acquired before and 1 year post-treatment and converted into 3D models using Mimics research software. RRR was quantified by measuring the changes in bone volume following superimpositioning and sectioning of these models at the anterior maxillary region. Subsequently, the sectioned 3D models of the anterior maxilla were exported to 3-Matic software to reveal the predominant region and depth of RRR.
RESULTS: The mean reduction in bone volume of the anterior maxilla in the CD group was 2.60% (SD = 1.71%, range = -4.89 % to -0.92%, median = -2.30%), while the mean reduction in the IRO group was almost three times higher at 7.25% (SD = 3.16%, range = -13.25 to -1.50, median = -7.15%). The predominant areas of RRR were on the buccal and occlusal ridge of the anterior maxilla.
CONCLUSION: Within the limits of this study, it may be concluded that an IRO caused significantly higher RRR of the anterior maxilla than a CD.
METHODS: Forty direct impressions of a mandibular reference model fitted with six dental implants and multibase abutments were made using VPES and PE, and implant casts were poured (N = 20). The VPES and PE groups were split into four subgroups of five each, based on splinting type: (a) no splinting; (b) bite registration polyether; (c) bite registration addition silicone; and (d) autopolymerizing acrylic resin. The accuracy of implant-abutment replica positions was calculated on the experimental casts, in terms of interimplant distances in the x, y, and z-axes, using a coordinate measuring machine; values were compared with those measured on the reference model. Data were analyzed using non-parametrical Kruskal-Wallis and Mann-Whitney tests at α = .05.
RESULTS: The differences between the two impression materials, VPES and PE, regardless of splinting type, were not statistically significant (P>.05). Non-splinting and splinting groups were also not significantly different for both PE and VPES (P>.05).
CONCLUSIONS: The accuracy of VPES impression material seemed comparable with PE for multi-implant abutment-level impressions. Splinting had no effect on the accuracy of implant impressions.