Online ISSN: 2515-8260

Keywords : implant

Evaluating accuracy of digital impressions and conventional impression in implant placement

Anmol Neha, Rabia Khan, Juhi Yadav, ShashankParmar, Danish Uz Zama Khan, Shyamolima Hazarika

European Journal of Molecular & Clinical Medicine, 2021, Volume 8, Issue 4, Pages 2321-2325

Background: The clinical feasibility of implant restorations is heavily influenced by the accuracy of digital impressions. The purpose of this research is to compare the accuracy of conventional impressions with impressions made digitally using three-dimensional analysis. Materials and methods: Twenty implants in eight patients in the posterior region of the oral cavity formed the study sample. Two operators with good inter-examiner reliability performed the procedure. Conventional impression were taken using polyether impression material and stock trays. Digital impressions of the same patient were taken after 2-3 weeks. Outcomes assessed were total time taken, distance between scanbodies, angulation, rotation, and vertical shift were all evaluated as clinical outcomes. SPSS 23.0 version (SPSS Inc., Chicago, IL, USA) software was used for data analysis.
Results:  In comparison to digital impressions, conventional impressions took longer time, which was statistically significant at p<0.001. In both impression approaches, the measurements of distance between scan bodies, angulation, and vertical shift were practically identical, which was not statistically significant.
Conclusion: Digital impressions outperformed conventional impressions during implant placement.


Dr. Anand V; Dr.Monisha S

European Journal of Molecular & Clinical Medicine, 2020, Volume 7, Issue 7, Pages 5745-5751

It is important, considering the wide range of orthodontic devices currently available on the market, to select the most biocompatible orthodontic implant available on the market. Current science data have shown that in vitro measurements of the toxicity of residual particles produced by various orthodontic apparatuses with oral cell lines provide accurate data. In this relation, three commercially available implants, i.e., stainless steel and titanium implants have been tested for in vitro biocompatibility. Methods: Human gingival fibroblasts (HGFs) have been used as the in vitro model to determine cellular morphology, viability of the cells, and cytotoxicity via a 24-hour and 72-hour test for celular implant exposure with 3-(4,5-dimethythiazol-2-yl)-, 2-5,5-diphenyltetrazolium bromide (MT) and LDH test. Results: The results compare implant surface structure and topography with biological, laboratory assessments related to the direct cells (genetic fibroblasts) and blood vessel toxicology (HET-CAM) trial. A relative cytototoxicity of HGF cells occurs for the stainless steel implant, while the other two tests did not produce substantial alteration in HGF cells. Conclusion: The stainless steel implant caused mild cytotoxic effects among the three orthodontic implants samples. This calls for improved alertness in their clinic usage, especially in patients with a strong sensitivity to nicke 1,2.