Optimal impression materials for implant-supported fixed complete dentures: A systematic review and meta-analysis. 2023

Yong-Qing Guo, and Yun Ma, and Shu-Ning Cai, and Hao Yu
Postgraduate student, Fujian Key Laboratory of Oral Diseases & Fujian Provincial Engineering Research Center of Oral Biomaterial & Stomatological Key Laboratory of Fujian College and University, School and Hospital of Stomatology, Fujian Medical University, Fuzhou, Fujian, PR China.

BACKGROUND 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. OBJECTIVE 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. 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.

UI MeSH Term Description Entries

Related Publications

Yong-Qing Guo, and Yun Ma, and Shu-Ning Cai, and Hao Yu
September 2023, Clinical oral implants research,
Yong-Qing Guo, and Yun Ma, and Shu-Ning Cai, and Hao Yu
January 2025, The International journal of oral & maxillofacial implants,
Yong-Qing Guo, and Yun Ma, and Shu-Ning Cai, and Hao Yu
December 2022, The Journal of prosthetic dentistry,
Yong-Qing Guo, and Yun Ma, and Shu-Ning Cai, and Hao Yu
November 1976, The Journal of prosthetic dentistry,
Yong-Qing Guo, and Yun Ma, and Shu-Ning Cai, and Hao Yu
February 1991, The Journal of prosthetic dentistry,
Yong-Qing Guo, and Yun Ma, and Shu-Ning Cai, and Hao Yu
March 1988, The Journal of prosthetic dentistry,
Yong-Qing Guo, and Yun Ma, and Shu-Ning Cai, and Hao Yu
January 2014, The International journal of periodontics & restorative dentistry,
Yong-Qing Guo, and Yun Ma, and Shu-Ning Cai, and Hao Yu
November 2024, International journal of implant dentistry,
Copied contents to your clipboard!