Digital Accuracy of Closed-Tray Implant Impressions: Influence of Polyvinyl Siloxane Viscosity and Subgingival Posterior Implant Angulation

<b>Objectives:</b> To assess the impact of PVS impression material viscosity and implant angulation on the three-dimensional accuracy of implant casts in a partially edentulous situation using the closed-tray technique. <b>Materials and Methods</b>: Three epoxy resin mandibular partially edentulous models (Kennedy Class I) were fabricated, each with four implant analogues placed at teeth positions 35, 37, 45, and 47. The anterior analogues were positioned parallel (0), while the posterior analogues were placed at different angulations: Group 1, 30° mesiodistal; Group 2, 20° mesiodistal; Group 3, 20° buccolingual. All analogues were placed 2 mm subgingivally. Closed-tray impressions (n = 8 per subgroup) were made using either heavy + light body PVS or monophase PVS. Resulting stone casts were scanned, and STL files were processed and analyzed using reverse engineering software (Geomagic Control X). Three-dimensional deviations (root mean square, RMS) between reference and test models were calculated by superimposition and best-fit algorithm. <b>Results:</b> With monophase PVS, implant angulation significantly influenced cast accuracy (<i>p</i> < 0.001). The 30° MD group exhibited the highest deviation (96 ± 7 µm), followed by the 20° BL group (81 ± 6 µm), then the 20° MD group (75 ± 6 µm). In contrast, no statistically significant difference in accuracy was observed among angulation groups when using heavy + light body PVS (77 ± 3 µm, 82 ± 13 µm, and 79 ± 8 µm for 30° MD, 20° BL, and 20° MD, respectively; <i>p</i> = 0.550). <b>Conclusions:</b> Both monophase and heavy + light body PVS impression materials produced clinically acceptable accuracy for closed-tray implant impressions. However, the heavy + light body PVS demonstrated greater consistency across various implant angulations and is recommended for multiple angulated subgingival posterior implants when using the closed-tray technique.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
Dentistry Journal
Published
2025-09-12
DOI
https://doi.org/10.3390/dj13090421
Primary Topic
Dental Implant Techniques and Outcomes
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
0.00

Funders

Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

Digital Accuracy of Closed-Tray Implant Impressions: Influence of Polyvinyl Siloxane Viscosity and Subgingival Posterior Implant Angulation

Noha Taymour, Yousra Ahmed, Islam Mohamed, Faris A. Alshahrani et al.
Dentistry Journal
Dental Implant Techniques and Outcomes
article

Digital Accuracy of Closed-Tray Implant Impressions: Influence of Polyvinyl Siloxane Viscosity and Subgingival Posterior Implant Angulation

Noha Taymour, Yousra Ahmed, Islam Mohamed, Faris A. Alshahrani, Zainab Refaey El Sharkawy, Shereen Moselhy Abdul Hameed, Tarek AbdAllah Mahmoud
article en

Abstract

<b>Objectives:</b> To assess the impact of PVS impression material viscosity and implant angulation on the three-dimensional accuracy of implant casts in a partially edentulous situation using the closed-tray technique. <b>Materials and Methods</b>: Three epoxy resin mandibular partially edentulous models (Kennedy Class I) were fabricated, each with four implant analogues placed at teeth positions 35, 37, 45, and 47. The anterior analogues were positioned parallel (0), while the posterior analogues were placed at different angulations: Group 1, 30° mesiodistal; Group 2, 20° mesiodistal; Group 3, 20° buccolingual. All analogues were placed 2 mm subgingivally. Closed-tray impressions (n = 8 per subgroup) were made using either heavy + light body PVS or monophase PVS. Resulting stone casts were scanned, and STL files were processed and analyzed using reverse engineering software (Geomagic Control X). Three-dimensional deviations (root mean square, RMS) between reference and test models were calculated by superimposition and best-fit algorithm. <b>Results:</b> With monophase PVS, implant angulation significantly influenced cast accuracy (<i>p</i> < 0.001). The 30° MD group exhibited the highest deviation (96 ± 7 µm), followed by the 20° BL group (81 ± 6 µm), then the 20° MD group (75 ± 6 µm). In contrast, no statistically significant difference in accuracy was observed among angulation groups when using heavy + light body PVS (77 ± 3 µm, 82 ± 13 µm, and 79 ± 8 µm for 30° MD, 20° BL, and 20° MD, respectively; <i>p</i> = 0.550). <b>Conclusions:</b> Both monophase and heavy + light body PVS impression materials produced clinically acceptable accuracy for closed-tray implant impressions. However, the heavy + light body PVS demonstrated greater consistency across various implant angulations and is recommended for multiple angulated subgingival posterior implants when using the closed-tray technique.

Dentistry JournalVol. 13(9)
Al-Azhar University (EG), Modern University for Information and Technology (EG), Al-Azhar University (ID), Misr International University (EG), Imam Abdulrahman Bin Faisal University (SA)
Al-Azhar University
Openalex Percentile: Top 63%
Dental Implant Techniques and Outcomes
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.