title: A comparison of the accuracy of polyether, polyvinyl siloxane, and plaster impressions for long-span implant-supported prostheses.
abstract: OBJECTIVE
  The purpose of this study was to compare the capacity of different impression materials to accurately reproduce the positions of five implant analogs on a master model by comparing the resulting cast with the stainless steel master model. The study was motivated by the knowledge that distortions can occur during impression making and the pouring of casts and that this distortion may produce inaccuracies of subsequent restorations, especially long-span castings for implant superstructures.
  
  
  METHODS
  The master model was a stainless steel model with five implant analogs. The impression materials used were impression plaster (Plastogum, Harry J Bosworth), a polyether (Impregum Penta, 3M ESPE), and two polyvinyl siloxane (PVS) materials (Aquasil Monophase and Aquasil putty with light-body wash, Dentsply). Five impressions were made with each impression material and cast in die stone under strictly controlled laboratory conditions. The positions of the implants on the master model, the impression copings, and the implant analogs in the subsequent casts were measured using a coordinate measuring machine that measures within 4 μm of accuracy.
  
  
  RESULTS
  Statistical analyses indicated that distortion occurred in all of the impression materials, but inconsistently. The PVS monophase material reproduced the master model most accurately. Although there was no significant distortion between the impressions and the master model or between the impressions and their casts, there were distortions between the master model and the master casts, which highlighted the cumulative effects of the distortions. The polyether material proved to be the most reliable in terms of predictability. The impression plaster displayed cumulative distortion, and the PVS putty with light body showed the least reliability.
  
  
  CONCLUSIONS
  Some of the distortions observed are of clinical significance and likely to contribute to a lack of passive fit of any superstructure. The inaccuracy of these analog materials and procedures suggested that greater predictability may lie in digital technology.
authors.forename: Vyonne J
authors.initials: VJ
authors.lastname: Hoods-Moonsammy
authors.forename: Peter
authors.initials: P
authors.lastname: Owen
authors.forename: Dale G
authors.initials: DG
authors.lastname: Howes
mesh_terms: D002133:Calcium Sulfate / Q000737:chemistry* / Q000592:standards; D003735:Dental Casting Technique / Q000295:instrumentation; D003760:Dental Impression Materials / Q000737:chemistry* / Q000592:standards; D003761:Dental Impression Technique / Q000295:instrumentation; D018772:Dental Marginal Adaptation / Q000592:standards; D019094:Dental Prosthesis, Implant-Supported; D003779:Denture Design; D004987:Ethers / Q000737:chemistry* / Q000592:standards; D006801:Humans; D003765:Models, Dental; D011145:Polyvinyls / Q000737:chemistry* / Q000592:standards; D012117:Resins, Synthetic / Q000737:chemistry / Q000592:standards; D012833:Siloxanes / Q000737:chemistry* / Q000592:standards; D013193:Stainless Steel / Q000737:chemistry; D013499:Surface Properties
chemical_list: D003760:Dental Impression Materials; D004987:Ethers; C022821:Impregum; D011145:Polyvinyls; D012117:Resins, Synthetic; D012833:Siloxanes; C480691:aquasil; C034183:vinyl polysiloxane; D013193:Stainless Steel; D002133:Calcium Sulfate