• 대한치과보철학회:학술대회논문집
• /
• 1999.04a
• /
• pp.51-51
• /
• 1999

• The Journal of Korean Academy of Prosthodontics
• /
• v.57 no.2
• /
• pp.171-175
• /
• 2019

Mandible with severe alveolar bone atrophy poses a significant challenge in terms of reproducing clinically acceptable anatomy for a removable prosthesis. To overcome this potential complication, altered cast impression technique is often recommended to capture accurate and functional gingiva tissues. It becomes possible to get proper anchors functional impression by placing 2 implants crowns which were impossible in previous implant overdenture impression technique. In this case, an 80-year old female patient with severe mandibular ridge atrophy was treated with an implant-assisted removable partial denture with two implant crowns on the canine area. An altered cast impression was taken with an individual tray on a metal framework of removable partial denture on both posterior edentulous areas. The patient was satisfied with the final prosthesis after failure of 2 previous prostheses. Clinician had a difficult time to manage disabled patient and patient were suffered with ill-fitting denture due to inaccurate impression in conventional overdenture condition. The oral rehabilitation was completed with placing 2 implants as proper anchor.

• The Journal of Korean Academy of Prosthodontics
• /
• v.53 no.2
• /
• pp.105-110
• /
• 2015

Purpose: The purpose of this study was to evaluate the 3 dimensional accuracy of impression taking on the newly developed healing abutment and impression coping combined system comparing conventional pick-up type impression. Materials and methods: For 10 patients who had a single missing tooth on molar area, dental implants (SuperLine; Dentium, Seoul, Korea) were placed and healing abutment (MyHealing; Raphabio Co., Seoul, Korea) abutments were connected. After 3 months, transfer type impression with MyHealing and pick-up type impression with impression coping were performed twice in the same patients, and master models were fabricated. Customized prosthetic abutments (Myplant; Raphabio Co., Seoul, Korea) were milled and connected to the master casts. Through a dental scanner (Scanner S600; Zirkonzahn, South Tyrol, Italy), the master casts were converted into virtual casts. The length and angulation differences between casts were measured using 3 dimentional analysis program (Geomagic Qualify 12; Geomagic, Morrisville, NC, USA). Statistical significance was calculated using Kruskal Wallis test and Mann-Whitney U test (${\alpha}$=.05). Results: The length differences between the two systems were 0.032 mm in sagittal plane, and 0.029 in coronal plane, and 0.023 mm in horizontal plane. The angulation differences were $0.755^{\circ}$ in sagittal plane, and $1.275^{\circ}$ in coronal plane, and $0.420^{\circ}$ in horizontal plane. Conclusion: The accuracy of newly developed healing abutment system is similar to that of conventional pick-up impression. The new system can reduces chair time by not using separate impression coping.

• The Journal of the Korean dental association
• /
• v.15 no.5
• /
• pp.323-324
• /
• 1977

• The Journal of the Korean dental association
• /
• v.15 no.6
• /
• pp.389-391
• /
• 1977

• The Journal of Korean Academy of Prosthodontics
• /
• v.8 no.1
• /
• pp.107-108
• /
• 1968

• The Journal of the Korean dental association
• /
• v.15 no.4
• /
• pp.261-263
• /
• 1977

• The Journal of Korean Academy of Prosthodontics
• /
• v.57 no.4
• /
• pp.432-438
• /
• 2019

Accurate impression taking for the success of implant prosthesis is a very important process. Methods of taking implant impression include the conventional method using impression coping and impression material, and the digital method using an intraoral scanner and scanbody. However, the impression coping or the scanbody must install after remove healing abutment. Because of this, the dentist must repeat the process of removing and installing the healing abutment, the impression coping or the scanbody several times. In addition, the impression coping or the scanbody rises higher than the occlusal surface, so the patient has the inconvenience of constantly maintaining the open state. Recently, a scannable healing abutment, which can be scanned by a intraoral scanner directly, without the need to remove the healing abutment by applying a scannable part of the scanbody to the healing abutment, was introduced. We present a case of single posterior implant prosthesis using a scannable healing abutment.

• Journal of Dental Rehabilitation and Applied Science
• /
• v.36 no.1
• /
• pp.29-40
• /
• 2020

Purpose: The purpose of this study was to compare the accuracy of impression taking method using the encoded healing abutment, scan body and pick-up impression coping with different implant angulations. Materials and Methods: Master model was fabricated by 3D printer and three implants were placed into the model with 0°, 10° and 20° mesial angulation. The abutments were secured to each implants and master model was scanned to make a reference model. Group P model was fabricated using pick-up impression copings and model was scanned after securing the abutments. Encoded healing abutment (Group E) and scan body (Group S) were secured on the master model and digital impression was taken using intraoral scanner 15 times each. Each STL files of test groups were superimposed with reference model using best fit alignment and root mean square (RMS) value was analyzed. Results: The RMS values were lowest in Group P, followed by Group S and Group E. Group P showed significant difference with Group S and E (P < 0.05) while there was no significant difference between Group S and E. Correlation between implant angulation and RMS value was significant in Group E (P < 0.05). Conclusion: The pick-up impression coping method showed higher accuracy and there was no significant difference in accuracy between the healing abutment and the scan body. The clinical use of the encoded healing abutment is possible, but it should be used with caution in the case of angulated implant.

• 대한치과보철학회:학술대회논문집
• /
• 2002.11a
• /
• pp.63-63
• /
• 2002