An in Vivo Evaluation of Prosthetic Implant Performances in Open and Closed Tray Implant Impression Techniques: A Clinical (Original Research) Study

Abstract

Background & Aim: Long term implant success is dependent on several factors including surgical and prosthetic factors. In prosthetic factors, impression technique plays a key role. This in vivo study was planned and aimed to evaluate the prosthetic implant performances in open and closed tray implant impression techniques.

Materials and Methods: In this study, all 16 patients were studied for implant prosthetic performances with 2 different implant impression techniques. Authors included both male and female patients in the age range of 26-41 years. Only single implant placement cases were selected in the study. In 8 patients, implant impression was done by open tray impression technique (Group 1). In next 8 patients, implant impression was done by closed tray impression technique (Group 2). Clinical absence of any soft tissue and hard tissue problem and presence of optimal chewing efficiency and esthetics was noted in terms of Satisfactory. Any alteration from these parameters were noted as Non-satisfactory and Questionable statuses as per their severity. Patients were recalled in their post operative phases and asked about the treatment and related performances. P value less than 0.05 was considered as significant (p< 0.05).

Statistical Analysis and Results: Statistical analysis was completed by statistical software; Statistical Package for the Social Sciences. Maximum 5 patients were noticed in the age range of 30-33 years and 34-37 years (each). P value was highly significant for 26-29 years (0.01). Minimum 3 patients were found in the age range of 38-41 years and 26-29 years (each). Total 8 male and 8 female patients were studied distinctively. In Group 1 (n=8), 5 patients were totally satisfied with open tray impression technique however; 2 patients were not satisfied and 1 was Questionable. In Group 2 (n=8), 4 patients were totally satisfied with closed tray impression technique however; 3 patients were not satisfied and 1 was Questionable. One-way ANOVA revealed highly significant p value (0.001).

Conclusion: In the present study, authors stated that implants with open tray technique showed superior performances as compared to closed tray technique. Suggestions of this study must be clinically correlated and verified prior to their clinical applications.