• 主题
高级搜索  >
历史搜索 清空历史
首页> 外文期刊>International Journal of Implant Dentistry >Implant impression accuracy of parallel and non-parallel implants: a comparative in-vitro analysis of open and closed tray techniques
【24h】

Implant impression accuracy of parallel and non-parallel implants: a comparative in-vitro analysis of open and closed tray techniques

机译：平行和非平行植入物的植入物压印精度：开放式托盘和封闭式托盘技术的体外比较分析

获取原文
           
页面导航
  • 摘要
  • 著录项
  • 相似文献
  • 相关主题

摘要

Abstract BackgroundThe outcome of the evaluation of impression techniques accuracy may improve the selection criteria for an ideal technique. The aim was to evaluate the accuracy of the open and closed tray techniques for implant impressions, in a partially edentulous maxilla, replaced with a three-unit fixed partial denture, as well as to assess the effect of implants parallelism on accuracy.Material and methodsThis is an experimental in vitro study to evaluate impressions accuracy of a simulated area restored with an implant retained FPD, using the open and closed tray implant impression techniques. The effect of implant position angulation, parallelism, and implant systems (Straumann, SIC Invent, Osstem) was also evaluated. Three custom-made acrylic resin test models were prepared with two parallel and two non-parallel implants, on either side of a maxillary arch. One hundred and ninety-two impressions were made using monophase VPS impression material. Their master casts were obtained and evaluated for the horizontal and vertical discrepancy. The casts were scanned using a model scanner. The distances between the two reference points were measured.ResultsThe Straumann and SIC Invent implants showed no statistically significant differences (Mann-Whitney U test), regarding accuracy for both the open and closed tray impression techniques ( P =?0.667 and P =?0.472). There were no significant differences for the parallel and non-parallel implants ( P =?0.323 and P =?0.814), respectively, while the Osstem system showed statistically significant differences for both the open and closed tray impression techniques ( P =?0.035) and between the parallel and non-parallel implants ( P =?0.045). For the vertical discrepancies, significant differences were detected (chi-square test) between the open and closed tray impression techniques ( P =?0.037).ConclusionsWithin the limitations of this study, there were generally no significant differences between open and closed, although better results were obtained for the open tray techniques. On the use of the non-parallel implants, the open tray technique provided a better result than the closed tray technique.
机译：摘要背景印象技术准确性的评估结果可能会改善理想技术的选择标准。目的是评估在部分缺牙的上颌中被三个单位固定的局部义齿取代的开放式和封闭式托盘技术对种植体印模的准确性，并评估种植体平行度对准确性的影响。是一项实验性体外研究，使用开放式和封闭式托盘植入物压印技术，评估保留有植入物的FPD修复的模拟区域的压印精度。还评估了植入物位置角度，平行度和植入物系统（Straumann，SIC Invent，Osstem）的影响。准备了三个定制的丙烯酸树脂测试模型，分别在上颌弓的两侧分别植入了两个平行和两个不平行的植入物。使用单相VPS压印材料制作了192个压印。他们获得了他们的主要演员，并评估了水平和垂直差异。使用模型扫描仪扫描铸件。结果测量了Straumann和SIC Invent植入物在开放式和封闭式托盘压印技术的准确性上均无统计学差异（Mann-Whitney U检验）（P =？0.667和P =？0.472）。 ）。平行和非平行植入物没有显着差异（分别为P = 0.323和P = 0.814），而Osstem系统在开放式和封闭式托盘压印技术上均显示出统计学上的显着差异（P = 0.035）。在平行植入物和非平行植入物之间（P =？0.045）。对于垂直差异，在打开和关闭托盘压印技术之间检测到显着差异（卡方检验）（P =？0.037）。结论在本研究的局限范围内，虽然更好，但打开和关闭之间通常没有显着差异。开盘技术获得了结果。在使用非平行种植体时，开放式托盘技术比封闭式托盘技术提供了更好的结果。

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
获取原文

客服邮箱：kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备：11010802029741号 ICP备案号：京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有

  • 客服微信

  • 服务号