Dimensional Accuracy of Conventional Impression Materials on Full-Arch Implant Impression

Creative Commons License

Koyu T., Coşkun A., Ülgey M., Görler O.

SDÜ SAĞLIK BİLİMLERİ DERGİSİ, no.17, pp.1-6, 2026 (Peer-Reviewed Journal)

Abstract

Objective The purpose of this in vitro study was to compare conventional impression materials for close tray implant impressions of maxillary full arch with 5 implants. Material and Method The edentulous maxilla model and custom impression trays were fabricated from auto-polymerizing acrylic resin. 5 implant analogs (Moment Dental Implant Systems, Turkey) representing implants were placed in the midline on the edentulous maxilla model, on both sides canine and first molar region. The study consisted of 4 groups(n=10). Study groups were as follows: group C1 polyvinyl siloxane (Elite HD+ Tray Material; Zhermack Italy); C2 polyvinyl siloxane (Hydrorise Implant Heavy&Light NS; Zhermack, Italy); C3 condensation silicone (Zetaplus Putty and Oranwash L; Zhermack, Italy) and C4 polyether (3M ESPE (Soft) Monophase, USA). Conventional impressions were performed with custom-made close trays and casts were made by type IV dental stone. Casts were scanned with the laboratory-type scanner. Whether the data of four separate groups showed a normal distribution was analyzed at the significance level (p = 0.05) using one-way ANOVA analysis using the SPSS 27 program. Results According to one-way ANOVA analysis, the null hypothesis was rejected because the significant value was greater than 0.05, meaning one of the groups was different from the other. At the 99.2% significance level, it was determined that Group 4 had different characteristics from the other groups. Conclusion Polyvinyl siloxane impression material provides reliable results for impressions of implant-supported prostheses. Rigidity and polymerization shrinkage are thought to reduce the accuracy of polyether impression material.