{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.04415823367065318, 'fraction_numerical': 0.02667893284268629, 'mean_word_length': 5.078212290502793, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 1, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Impression techniques for multiple implants: a photoelastic analysis. Part I: comparison of three direct methods.

The purpose of this article was to compare through photoelastic analysis the stress distribution in 3 direct transfer techniques for implants with splinting. Three photoelastic resin blocks were made with 2 implants placed parallel to each other and 2 square transfer copings splinted. Both transfers were splinted with acrylic resin chemically activated in 3 different techniques: metallic sticks (T1), prefabricated acrylic bars (T2), or dental floss (T3). A circular polariscope was used, and the distortion energy (E) was calculated in 4 periods: 20 minutes and 3, 24, and 36 hours. Statistically significant differences were found among the 3 techniques (P < .05). The dental floss presented the greatest distortion energy values (T3 = 0.469 Kgf/mm(2)) and the metallic sticks the lowest values (T1 = 0.0 Kgf/mm(2)). Thus, the metallic sticks technique (T1) appears to be the most accurate protocol to be used for implant-supported prosthesis with multiple abutments.