Background: The target of this clinical study was to compare and analyze two different open tray impression techniques on the passivity of fit of implant supported prosthesis placed in completely edentulous maxillae
Materials and Methods: In this clinical study, patients were divided into two equal groups: Group I, Open tray impression technique was performed where non-splinting of the Temporary titanium abutments was performed while in Group II, Open tray impression technique was performed where splinting of the Temporary titanium abutments with DuraLay acrylic resin was done. The results of this paper involved checking each abutment's passivity of fit in the framework. The Presence of any lack of Passivity was denoted the number 1 while passively fit abutments were denoted the number 0. Results for both Groups I and II were then tabulated, calculated and statistically analysed.
Results: The results of this study revealed that the total number of non-passive abutments for group I were (8) abutments, while for group II only (1) abutment showed lack of passivity. Using Chi square test for detection of significance between both groups regarding passivity count, results revealed that there was a statistically significant difference between both groups (P-value < 0.05)
Conclusion: Within the limitations of this study, it can be concluded that splinting of the transfer abutments with acrylic resin renders a more accurate reproduction of the impression details hence contributing to more passive implant supported superstructure frameworks.