Anna Chen, Zachary Blatman, Amy Chan, Anna Hossain, Chavon Niles, Adelle Atkinson, Indra Narang
Providing culturally responsive care in a pediatric setting: are our trainees ready?
BMC medical education
objective evaluate compare stability open tray impression coping within set impression attaching lab analog polyether pe heavy body polyvinyl siloxane pvs putty impression materials used implant platform placed subgingivally three different depths methods two impression materials pe pvs custommade plexiglass models embedded single implants simulate implant positioning depths 0 mm 2 mm 4 mm subgingivally used study open tray impressions made attaching impression coping implant embedded model implant lab analog attached impression coping set impression stability measured using universal testing machine fortytwo open tray impressions made six groups seven impressions group descriptive statistics mean standard deviation calculated comparison mean stability two impression materials depth done using independent ttest comparison mean stability three different subgingival implant depths material done oneway anova scheffe multiple comparison test posthoc analysis level significance set p005 results stability impression coping measured force newtons required displacement analog attached impression coping embedded set impression pe embedded impression coping depth 0 mm gave highest mean stability value 437041 least mean stability offered pvs embedded impression coping 4 mm depth 188037 independent ttest done compare mean stability values pe pvs statistically significant difference 0 mm 2 mm 4 mm oneway anova compare mean stability different depth groups statistically significant difference three depth groups pe pvs scheffe multiple comparison tests posthoc analysis revealed statistically significant difference 0 mm 2 mm 4 mm subgingival depths impression coping placement pe pvs conclusion accuracy master cast important determinant precise fit long life final prosthesis case maxillary anterior implant placements deep subgingival placement implant platform needed aesthetic functional reasons impression material selected carefully ensure stability impression coping among materials included present study pe impression material offered maximum stability impression coping compared pvs