A Comprehensive Assessment of Relative Awareness About Various Implant Impressions and Their Outcomes in Anterior Esthetic Region: An Original Research Study

Main Article Content

Karvika Nayak, Gita Rani, Silvi Jerath, Niharika Sabharwal, Disha Bhandari, Nilisha Rao


Background and Aim: Dental implant therapy is highly liable to be compromised if attempted inaccurately. Ultimate esthetic outcome of anterior implant rehabilitation solely related to efficient impressions and their accurate reproductions in different laboratory stages. Poorly designed anterior implant prosthesis can by rejected by patient due to unacceptable esthetics. Therefore this questionnaire based study was planned and conducted to assess the relative awareness about various implant impressions and their outcomes in anterior esthetic region.

Materials and Methods: Authors firstly contacted 100 nearby leading dental practitioners. The contact details were obtained by the registry of regional dental association. Simple random method for sample selection procedure was used. All willing practitioners were asked to honestly response on all 7 questions within a time period of one month. Questions were about implant and their esthetic outcomes in maxillary anterior region. Participants were asked for the knowledge and awareness about open tray and closed tray implant impression, use of straight and angulated abutment, esthetic acceptance of patient. Statistical analysis was conducted to figure-out the inferences and results. P value less than 0.05 was taken as significant.

Statistical Analysis and Results: Basic statistical analysis with SPSS statistical package for the Social Sciences. Out of 100 studied practitioners, 64 were males and 36 were females. 70 practitioners had Knowledge and awareness about open tray and closed tray implant impression. 35 practitioners have Knowledge and awareness about the use of straight and angulated abutment. Level of significance evaluation using “Pearson Chi-Square” test showed P value which was highly significant for question number 1 and 7. For question no.1, statistical mean was 2.31, standard deviation was 0.029, standard error was 0.835. Assessment with one-way ANOVA revealed highly imperative and significant (0.001).

Article Details