İmplant Destekli Sabit Protezlerde Kullanılan Ölçü Yöntemleri
Özet
İmplant destekli sabit protezlerde klinik başarı ve protetik komplikasyonların azaltılması, implant üst yapısı ile dayanak arasındaki pasif uyuma bağlıdır. Bu uyumun sağlanmasında doğru ölçü tekniğinin seçimi kritik bir rol oynar. İmplant ölçü yöntemleri genel olarak geleneksel (açık ve kapalı kaşık) ve dijital ölçü teknikleri olmak üzere ikiye ayrılır. Kapalı kaşık tekniği, sınırlı interark mesafesi ve öğürme refleksi olan hastalarda klinik kolaylık sağlarken, paralel yerleştirilmeyen veya derin implantlarda yırtılma ve konum hatalarına yol açabilir. Açık kaşık tekniği ise çok üyeli protezlerde ve hatalı açılanmalarda daha uniform materyal dağılımı sağlayarak distorsiyonu azaltır. Özellikle çok üyeli vakalarda akrilik rezin veya ölçü alçısı gibi materyallerle yapılan splintleme işlemi, postların hareketini engelleyerek ölçü doğruluğunu en üst düzeye çıkarır. Son yıllarda gelişen dijital ölçü tekniği; hasta konforu, 3D veri aktarımı ve üstün marjinal uyum gibi avantajlar sunsa da, literatürde doğruluğu konusunda henüz tam bir uzlaşı yoktur. Mevcut çalışmalar ışığında, implant destekli sabit protezlerde en hassas ve güvenilir yöntem, özellikle dörtten fazla implant içeren veya 15 dereceden fazla açılanma bulunan vakalarda splintlenmiş açık kaşık ölçü yöntemidir.
Clinical success and the reduction of prosthetic complications in implant-supported fixed prostheses depend directly on the passive fit between the implant superstructure and the abutment. Selecting the correct impression technique plays a critical role in achieving this fit. Implant impression methods are generally divided into conventional (open and closed-tray) and digital impression techniques. While the closed-tray technique offers clinical convenience in patients with limited interarch distance and gag reflex, it can cause tearing and positional errors in non-parallel or deeply placed implants. Conversely, the open-tray technique reduces distortion in multi-unit prostheses and misaligned implants by ensuring a uniform distribution of the impression material. Especially in multi-unit cases, the splinting procedure performed with materials such as acrylic resin or impression plaster prevents the movement of the copings and maximizes impression accuracy. Although the recently developed digital impression technique offers advantages such as patient comfort, 3D data transfer, and superior marginal fit, there is still no full consensus in the literature regarding its accuracy. In light of current studies, the most precise and reliable method for implant-supported fixed prostheses is the splinted open-tray impression technique, particularly in cases involving more than four implants or angulations greater than 15 degrees.
Referanslar
Drago C. Implant restorations: A step-by-step guide: John Wiley & Sons; 2020.
Brånemark P, Zarb G, Albrektsson T. Tissue-integrated prostheses: osseointegration in clinical dentistry. Chicago: Quintessence Publ. Co. Inc; 1985.
Zoldos J, Kent J. Chapter 4. Healing of endossseous implants. Endosseous implants for maxilofacial reconstruction Ed by Michael Block and John Kent, Philadelphia: WB Saunders Co. 1995:40-51.
Boudrias P, Shoghikian E, Morin E, Hutnik P. Esthetic option for the implant-supported single-tooth restoration-treatment sequence with a ceramic abutment. J Can Dent Assoc. 2001;67(9):508-15.
Squier RS, Agar JR, Duncan JP, Taylor TD. Retentiveness of dental cements used with metallic implant components. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2001;16(6):793-8.
Kahramanoğlu E, Kulak‐Özkan Y. The Effect of Different Restorative and Abutment Materials on Marginal and Internal Adaptation of Three‐Unit Cantilever Implant‐Supported Fixed Partial Dentures: An In Vitro Study. J Prosthodont. 2013;22(8):608-17.
Misch C. Occulusal considerations for implant-supported prosthesis: implant protected occlusion. Dental implant prosthetics. 2005:472-510.
Gil F, Herrero-Climent M, Lázaro P, Rios J. Implant–abutment connections: influence of the design on the microgap and their fatigue and fracture behavior of dental implants. J Mater Sci Mater Med.2014;25(7):1825-30.
Annaldasula SV, Yen CSA. A comprehensive review of impression techniques in implant dentistry. Int J Dent. 2021 ; 6(1): 16-23.
Özyer EK, Kahramanoğlu E, Aslan YU, Özkan Y. İmplant Destekli Protetik Restorasyonlarda Kullanılan Ölçü Yöntemleri ve Materyalleri: Derleme. European Journal of Research in Dentistry. 2019;3(2):124-32.
Liou AD, Nicholls JI, Yuodelis RA, Brudvik JS. Accuracy of replacing three tapered transfer impression copings in two elastomeric impression materials. Int J Prosthodont.. 1993;6(4):377-83.
Şengün E, Çömlekoğlu ME, Çömlekoğlu MD, Yılmaz G. İmplant Destekli Restorasyonlarda Kullanılan Ölçü Teknikleri: Derleme. Ondokuz Mayıs Üniversitesi Diş Hekimliği Fakültesi Dergisi.13(2):37-43.
Chee W, Jivraj S. Impression techniques for implant dentistry. Br Dent J. 2006;201(7):429-32.
Carr AB. Comparison of impression techniques for a two-implant 15-degree divergent model. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants.1992;7:468.
Farronato D, Pasini PM, Campana V, Lops D, Azzi L, Manfredini M. Can transfer type and implant angulation affect impression accuracy? A 3D in vitro evaluation. Odontology. 2021;109(4):884-94.
Choi J-H, Lim Y-J, Kim C-W. Evaluation of the accuracy of implant-level impression techniques for internal-connection implant prostheses in parallel and divergent models. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2007;22(5).
Conrad HJ, Pesun IJ, DeLong R, Hodges JS. Accuracy of two impression techniques with angulated implants. J Prosthet Dent.2007;97(6):349-56.
Ahlholm P, Sipilä K, Vallittu P, Jakonen M, Kotiranta U. Digital Versus Conventional Impressions in Fixed Prosthodontics: A Review. J Prosthodont.: official journal of the American College of Prosthodontists. 2018;27(1):35-41.
Chochlidakis KM, Papaspyridakos P, Geminiani A, Chen CJ, Feng IJ, Ercoli C. Digital versus conventional impressions for fixed prosthodontics: A systematic review and meta-analysis. J Prosthet Dent. 2016;116(2):184-90.e12.
Velásquez D, Yaneth JC, Kaliks JF. Comparison of Direct and Indirect Techniques to Develop Customized Implant Impression Copings: A Pilot Study. The International journal of periodontics & restorative dentistry. 2015;35(4):525-31.
Agarwal S, Ashok V, Maiti S. Open- or Closed-Tray Impression Technique in Implant Prosthesis: A Dentist's Perspective. J Long Term Eff Med Implants.2020;30(3):193-8.
Lee H, So JS, Hochstedler J, Ercoli C. The accuracy of implant impressions: a systematic review. J Prosthet Dent. 2008;100(4):285-91.
Lee S-J, Cho S-B. Accuracy of five implant impression technique: effect of splinting materials and methods. J Adv Prosthodont. 2011;3(4):177-85.
Del'Acqua MA, Chávez AM, Compagnoni MA. Accuracy of impression techniques for an implant-supported prosthesis. International Journal of Oral & Maxillofacial Implants. 2010;25(4).
Aktöre H, Kurtulmuş-Yılmaz S. İmplant destekli protezlerde ölçünün doğruluğunu etkileyen faktörlerin değerlendirilmesi The evaluation of factors that affect the accuracy of implant impressions. Cumhuriyet Dental Journal. 2015;18(2):214-27.
Ivanhoe JR, Adrian ED, Krantz WA, Edge MJ. An impression technique for osseointegrated implants. J Prosthet Dent. 1991;66(3):410-1.
Vigolo P, Majzoub Z, Cordioli G. Evaluation of the accuracy of three techniques used for multiple implant abutment impressions. J Prosthet Dent. 2003;89(2):186-92.
Assif D, Nissan J, Varsano I, Singer A. Accuracy of implant impression splinted techniques: effect of splinting material. International Journal of Oral and Maxillofacial Implants. 1999;14(6):885-8.
Öngül D, Gökçen‐Röhlig B, Şermet B, Keskin H. A comparative analysis of the accuracy of different direct impression techniques for multiple implants. Aust Dent J. 2012;57(2):184-9.
Buzayan M, Baig MR, Yunus N. Evaluation of accuracy of complete-arch multiple-unit abutment-level dental implant impressions using different impression and splinting materials. International Journal of Oral & Maxillofacial Implants. 2013;28(6).
Ting‐shu S, Jian S. Intraoral digital impression technique: a review. J Prosthodont. 2015;24(4):313-21.
Patel N. Integrating three-dimensional digital technologies for comprehensive implant dentistry. The journal of the American dental association. 2010;141:20-4.
Lee SJ, MacArthur IV RX, Gallucci GO. An evaluation of student and clinician perception of digital and conventional implant impressions. J Prosthet Dent. 2013;110(5):420-3.
Lee SJ, Gallucci GO. Digital vs. conventional implant impressions: efficiency outcomes. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2013;24(1):111-5.
García-Gil I, Cortés-Bretón-Brinkmann J, Jiménez-García J, Peláez-Rico J, Suárez-García MJ. Precision and practical usefulness of intraoral scanners in implant dentistry: A systematic literature review. J Clin Exp Dent. 2020;12(8):784-93.
Kimoto K, Tanaka K, Toyoda M, Ochiai KT. Indirect latex glove contamination and its inhibitory effect on vinyl polysiloxane polymerization. J Prosthet Dent.. 2005;93(5):433-8.
Donovan TE, Chee WW. A review of contemporary impression materials and techniques. Dental Clinics. 2004;48(2):445-70.
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;14(1):144-51.
Kempler J. The effect of impression technique, connection type and implant angulation on impression accuracy: University of Maryland, Baltimore; 2011.
Faria JCBd, Neves ACC, Miranda ME, Teixeira ML. Evaluation of the accuracy of different transfer impression techniques for multiple implants. Braz Oral Res. 2011;25(2):163-7.
Jo S-H, Kim K-I, Seo J-M, Song K-Y, Park J-M, Ahn S-G. Effect of impression coping and implant angulation on the accuracy of implant impressions: an in vitro study. J Adv Prosthodont. 2010;2(4):128-33.
Hoist S, Blatz MB, Bergler M, Goellner M, Wichmann M. Influence of impression material and time on the 3-dimensional accuracy of implant impressions. Quintessence international. 2007;38(1).
Baskai KG. Evaluation of Digital Implant Impressions using an Intra-oral Computerized Scanner (iTero) versus Conventional Implant Impressions: A 3-Dimensional Analysis of Accuracy: University of Toronto (Canada); 2014.
Lee SJ, Betensky RA, Gianneschi GE, Gallucci GO. Accuracy of digital versus conventional implant impressions. Clin Oral Implants Res.2015;26(6):715-9.
Alikhasi M, Alsharbaty MHM, Moharrami M. Digital implant impression technique accuracy: a systematic review. Implant Dent. 2017;26(6):929-35.
