Optimal impression materials for implant-supported fixed complete dentures: A systematic review and meta-analysis.
J Prosthet Dent 2023:S0022-3913(23)00433-X. [PMID:
37599185 DOI:
10.1016/j.prosdent.2023.06.024]
[Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 04/24/2023] [Revised: 06/26/2023] [Accepted: 06/27/2023] [Indexed: 08/22/2023]
Abstract
STATEMENT OF PROBLEM
Although polyvinyl siloxane (PVS) materials and polyether (PE) materials have been the recommended materials for making impressions for implant-supported fixed complete dentures (IFCDs), a consensus regarding the optimal impression materials has yet to be established.
PURPOSE
The purpose of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to evaluate the effect of impression materials on the accuracy of conventional impressions for IFCDs and to provide guidance for selecting the optimal impression material.
MATERIAL AND METHODS
The PubMed, Web of Science, and Embase databases were searched and supplemented via hand searches. Studies comparing the accuracy of conventional impressions for IFCDs by using PVS and PE materials with either direct (open-tray) or indirect (closed-tray) techniques were included. Linear distance deviations and angular deviations between adjacent implants were evaluated. The mean difference (MD) with a 95% confidence interval (CI) was calculated for continuous data. A subgroup analysis was conducted to evaluate the impact of implant angulation (α=.05).
RESULTS
Among the 597 publications identified, 27 in vitro studies were included for qualitative analysis, and 12 were included for quantitative analysis. The general analysis revealed no significant differences in linear distance and angular deviations between the 2 impression materials with the direct or indirect technique. The subgroup analysis found that a statistically significant difference in linear distance deviations was found when implants were placed at an angle greater than 15 degrees, favoring PE materials when using the direct technique (P=.010, MD: 32.54 µm; 95% CI: 6.83 to 58.24) and indirect technique (P=.020, MD: 138.15 µm, 95% CI: 19.17 to 257.13). However, only 2 relevant studies assessed the indirect technique.
CONCLUSIONS
When providing IFCDs, conventional impressions obtained by using PVS and PE materials were found to have similar accuracy in most scenarios. PE materials yielded better outcomes when implants were placed at an angle greater than 15 degrees.
Collapse