Farklı açılarda yerleştirilmiş implantların farklı ölçü teknikleri ve analog sistemleri kullanılarak elde edilen modellerinin ölçü hassasiyetinin değerlendirilmesi
[ X ]
Tarih
2023
Yazarlar
Dergi Başlığı
Dergi ISSN
Cilt Başlığı
Yayıncı
Kırıkkale Üniversitesi
Erişim Hakkı
info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccess
Özet
Bu çalışmanın amacı, kısmi dişsiz üst çene ana modellerine farklı açı ve mesafelerde yerleştirilen implantların dijital ve konvansiyonel ölçü teknikleri kullanılarak elde edilen ölçülerinin doğruluğunu değerlendirmektir. Bu çalışmada, akrilik reçineden maksillayı taklit eden iki ana model üretilmiş ve her birine dört implant yerleştirilmiştir. İlk ana modelde 14,15,16,24,25,26 numaralı dişler, ikinci ana modelde 14,15,16,17,24,25,26,27 numaralı dişler eksiktir. İkinci ana modelde her bir dişsiz boşluğa yerleştirilecek olan implantların merkezinden geçen mesafe, birinci ana modelde her bir dişsiz boşluğa yerleştirilecek olan implantların merkezinden geçen mesafeden 10 mm daha fazladır. Birinci ana modelde implantlar 14 ve 16 numaralı diş konumlarına eğimsiz olarak yerleştirilirken, 24 numaralı diş konumuna 17° distale ve 26 numaralı diş konumuna 30° distale eğimli yerleştirilmiştir. İkinci ana modelde implantlar 14 ve 17 numaralı diş konumlarına eğimsiz olarak yerleştirilirken, 24 numaralı diş konumuna 17° distale ve 27 numaralı diş konumuna 30° distale eğimli yerleştirilmiştir. Toplamda, her ana modelde dört implant vardır. Ana modellerden dayanak seviyesinde; geleneksel açık kaşık, kapalı kaşık ve dijital ölçü tekniği kullanılarak ölçüler alınmıştır. Ana modellerin ölçümleri PiC Dental Sistem kullanılarak yapılmıştır. Konvansiyonel ölçüler, tip 4 dental sert alçı kullanılarak dökülmüştür. Dijital ölçüler, reçine modellerin üretilmesi amacıyla bir diş laboratuvarına aktarılmıştır. Her ana model için toplam 3 alt grup oluşturulmuş, her grupta 10 model olacak şekilde toplam 30 model elde edilmiştir (n=10). Ana modellere göre x, y ve z eksenindeki sapmalar ??(x-xb)?^2 + ?(y-yb)?^2 + ?(z-zb) ?^2 formülü kullanılarak hesaplanmıştır. Veriler, ölçü tekniği, implantlar arası mesafe ve implant açılanma parametreleri için çok değişkenli bir varyans analizi (MANOVA) testi ile analiz edilmiştir. Verilerin normalliği Shapiro-Wilk testi ile analiz edilmiştir. Çoklu karşılaştırmalar için Mann-Whitney U testi kullanılmıştır (?=.05). Kısmi dişsiz maksillada birden fazla implant bulunan durumlarda, ölçünün doğruluğu implant açılanmasından ve kullanılan ölçü tekniğinden etkilenmiştir. Çalışma sonuçlarındaki açısal sapma değerlerine göre açık ve kapalı kaşık ölçü teknikleri kullanılarak yapılan ölçüler, dijital ölçü tekniğine göre daha az sapma göstermiştir. Açık ve kapalı kaşık ölçü teknikleri arasında istatistiksel olarak anlamlı bir fark yoktur. Çalışmanın genel sonuçları açısından, implantlar arasındaki mesafe arttıkça ölçü doğruluğunda istatistiksel olarak anlamlı bir fark görülmemiştir.
The aim of this study is to evaluate the accuracy of the impressions obtained using digital and conventional impression techniques of implants placed at different distances and at different angles to the partially edentulous maxillary main models. In the current study, two main models were produced from acrylic resin imitating the maxillae, on each of which four implants were placed. In the first main model, teeth numbers # 14,15,16,24,25,26 were missing. In the second main model, teeth numbers #14,15,16,17,24,25,26,27 were missing. The distance from the center of the implants to be placed in each edentulous cavity in the second main model is 10 mm more than the distance passing through the center of the implants to be placed in each edentulous cavity in the first main model. In the first main model, the implants were placed at tooth positions #14,16 without inclination whereas implants positioned at sites # 24 was tilted 17° distally and #26 was tilted 30° distally. In the second main model, the implants were placed at tooth positions #14,17 without inclination whereas implants positioned at sites # 24 was tilted 17° distally and #27 was tilted 30° distally. In total, there were four implants on each main model. Abutment level impressions of the main models were made using conventional and digital techniques where conventional techniques included the open tray and closed tray techniques. Digital impressions of the main models were made using the The PiC Dental System. Conventional impressions were poured using type 4 dental hard plaster. Digital impressions were transferred to a dental laboratory to manufacture resin models with digital implant analogues at implant locations. There was a total of 3 subgroups for each main model, with 10 models in each group that were determined in such a way that a total of 30 models were obtained (n = 10). Deviations in the x, y, and z axis as compared to the main models were calculated using the formula : ?(x ? xb) 2 + (y ? yb) 2 + (z ? zb) 2 Data were analyzed with a multivariate analysis of variance (MANOVA) test for impression technique, inter implant distance, and implant angulation parameters. Normality of data was analyzed with the Shapiro Wilk test. Mann-Whitney U test was used for multiple comparisons (?=.05). In cases in which there is more than one implant in a partially edentulous maxillae, the accuracy of the impression is affected by the implant angulation and the impression technique used. According to the angular deviation values in the study's results, the impressions made using the open- and closed-tray impression techniques showed less deviation than the digital impression technique. There was no statistically significant difference between the open- and closed-tray impression techniques. In terms of the overall results of the study, there was no statistically significant difference in impression accuracy as the distance between implants increased.
The aim of this study is to evaluate the accuracy of the impressions obtained using digital and conventional impression techniques of implants placed at different distances and at different angles to the partially edentulous maxillary main models. In the current study, two main models were produced from acrylic resin imitating the maxillae, on each of which four implants were placed. In the first main model, teeth numbers # 14,15,16,24,25,26 were missing. In the second main model, teeth numbers #14,15,16,17,24,25,26,27 were missing. The distance from the center of the implants to be placed in each edentulous cavity in the second main model is 10 mm more than the distance passing through the center of the implants to be placed in each edentulous cavity in the first main model. In the first main model, the implants were placed at tooth positions #14,16 without inclination whereas implants positioned at sites # 24 was tilted 17° distally and #26 was tilted 30° distally. In the second main model, the implants were placed at tooth positions #14,17 without inclination whereas implants positioned at sites # 24 was tilted 17° distally and #27 was tilted 30° distally. In total, there were four implants on each main model. Abutment level impressions of the main models were made using conventional and digital techniques where conventional techniques included the open tray and closed tray techniques. Digital impressions of the main models were made using the The PiC Dental System. Conventional impressions were poured using type 4 dental hard plaster. Digital impressions were transferred to a dental laboratory to manufacture resin models with digital implant analogues at implant locations. There was a total of 3 subgroups for each main model, with 10 models in each group that were determined in such a way that a total of 30 models were obtained (n = 10). Deviations in the x, y, and z axis as compared to the main models were calculated using the formula : ?(x ? xb) 2 + (y ? yb) 2 + (z ? zb) 2 Data were analyzed with a multivariate analysis of variance (MANOVA) test for impression technique, inter implant distance, and implant angulation parameters. Normality of data was analyzed with the Shapiro Wilk test. Mann-Whitney U test was used for multiple comparisons (?=.05). In cases in which there is more than one implant in a partially edentulous maxillae, the accuracy of the impression is affected by the implant angulation and the impression technique used. According to the angular deviation values in the study's results, the impressions made using the open- and closed-tray impression techniques showed less deviation than the digital impression technique. There was no statistically significant difference between the open- and closed-tray impression techniques. In terms of the overall results of the study, there was no statistically significant difference in impression accuracy as the distance between implants increased.
Açıklama
Diş Hekimliği Fakültesi, Protetik Diş Tedavisi Ana Bilim Dalı
Anahtar Kelimeler
Diş Hekimliği, Dentistry
