• 文献检索
  • 文档翻译
  • 深度研究
  • 学术资讯
  • Suppr Zotero 插件Zotero 插件
  • 邀请有礼
  • 套餐&价格
  • 历史记录
应用&插件
Suppr Zotero 插件Zotero 插件浏览器插件Mac 客户端Windows 客户端微信小程序
定价
高级版会员购买积分包购买API积分包
服务
文献检索文档翻译深度研究API 文档MCP 服务
关于我们
关于 Suppr公司介绍联系我们用户协议隐私条款
关注我们

Suppr 超能文献

核心技术专利:CN118964589B侵权必究
粤ICP备2023148730 号-1Suppr @ 2026

文献检索

告别复杂PubMed语法,用中文像聊天一样搜索,搜遍4000万医学文献。AI智能推荐,让科研检索更轻松。

立即免费搜索

文件翻译

保留排版,准确专业,支持PDF/Word/PPT等文件格式,支持 12+语言互译。

免费翻译文档

深度研究

AI帮你快速写综述,25分钟生成高质量综述,智能提取关键信息,辅助科研写作。

立即免费体验

不同类型印模托盘和印模材料对开放式种植体印模准确性的体外比较评估:一项初步研究。

In Vitro Comparative Evaluation of Different Types of Impression Trays and Impression Materials on the Accuracy of Open Tray Implant Impressions: A Pilot Study.

作者信息

Gupta Sonam, Narayan Aparna Ichalangod, Balakrishnan Dhanasekar

机构信息

Department of Prosthodontics and Crown & Bridge, Manipal College of Dental Sciences, Manipal University, Manipal, Karnataka, India.

出版信息

Int J Dent. 2017;2017:6306530. doi: 10.1155/2017/6306530. Epub 2017 Feb 27.

DOI:10.1155/2017/6306530
PMID:28348595
原文链接:https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC5350296/
Abstract

. For a precise fit of multiple implant framework, having an accurate definitive cast is imperative. The present study evaluated dimensional accuracy of master casts obtained using different impression trays and materials with open tray impression technique. . A machined aluminum reference model with four parallel implant analogues was fabricated. Forty implant level impressions were made. Eight groups ( = 5) were tested using impression materials (polyether and vinylsiloxanether) and four types of impression trays, two being custom (self-cure acrylic and light cure acrylic) and two being stock (plastic and metal). The interimplant distances were measured on master casts using a coordinate measuring machine. The collected data was compared with a standard reference model and was statistically analyzed using two-way ANOVA. . Statistically significant difference ( < 0.05) was found between the two impression materials. However, the difference seen was small (36 m) irrespective of the tray type used. No significant difference ( > 0.05) was observed between varied stock and custom trays. . The polyether impression material proved to be more accurate than vinylsiloxanether impression material. The rigid nonperforated stock trays, both plastic and metal, could be an alternative for custom trays for multi-implant impressions when used with medium viscosity impression materials.

摘要

对于多个种植体框架的精确适配,拥有精确的终印模至关重要。本研究评估了使用不同印模托盘和材料并采用开放托盘印模技术获得的母模的尺寸精度。制作了一个带有四个平行种植体代型的加工铝制参考模型。制作了40个种植体水平印模。使用印模材料(聚醚和乙烯基硅氧烷醚)和四种类型的印模托盘进行八组(每组n = 5)测试,其中两种是定制托盘(自凝丙烯酸树脂和光固化丙烯酸树脂),两种是成品托盘(塑料和金属)。使用坐标测量机在母模上测量种植体间距离。将收集的数据与标准参考模型进行比较,并使用双向方差分析进行统计分析。在两种印模材料之间发现了具有统计学意义的差异(P < 0.05)。然而,无论使用何种托盘类型,观察到的差异都很小(36μm)。在不同的成品托盘和定制托盘之间未观察到显著差异(P > 0.05)。聚醚印模材料被证明比乙烯基硅氧烷醚印模材料更精确。刚性无孔成品托盘,无论是塑料的还是金属的,与中等粘度印模材料一起使用时,都可以作为多种植体印模定制托盘的替代品。

https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/e93e/5350296/1b674e2b8ee5/IJD2017-6306530.006.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/e93e/5350296/a2a6a7e38b8c/IJD2017-6306530.001.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/e93e/5350296/432a0a9faa52/IJD2017-6306530.002.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/e93e/5350296/c91902730b62/IJD2017-6306530.003.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/e93e/5350296/151a506ed687/IJD2017-6306530.004.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/e93e/5350296/d4a4cbc3046f/IJD2017-6306530.005.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/e93e/5350296/1b674e2b8ee5/IJD2017-6306530.006.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/e93e/5350296/a2a6a7e38b8c/IJD2017-6306530.001.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/e93e/5350296/432a0a9faa52/IJD2017-6306530.002.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/e93e/5350296/c91902730b62/IJD2017-6306530.003.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/e93e/5350296/151a506ed687/IJD2017-6306530.004.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/e93e/5350296/d4a4cbc3046f/IJD2017-6306530.005.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/e93e/5350296/1b674e2b8ee5/IJD2017-6306530.006.jpg

相似文献

1
In Vitro Comparative Evaluation of Different Types of Impression Trays and Impression Materials on the Accuracy of Open Tray Implant Impressions: A Pilot Study.不同类型印模托盘和印模材料对开放式种植体印模准确性的体外比较评估:一项初步研究。
Int J Dent. 2017;2017:6306530. doi: 10.1155/2017/6306530. Epub 2017 Feb 27.
2
Accuracy of open tray implant impressions: an in vitro comparison of stock versus custom trays.开放式托盘种植体印模的准确性:成品托盘与定制托盘的体外比较
J Prosthet Dent. 2003 Mar;89(3):250-5. doi: 10.1067/mpr.2003.38.
3
Need for a reliable alternative to custom-made Implant Impression trays: An study comparing accuracy of custom trays versus specialized aluminum stock tray.需要一种可靠的定制种植体印模托盘替代品:一项比较定制托盘与专用铝制成品托盘准确性的研究。
J Indian Prosthodont Soc. 2018 Jul-Sep;18(3):271-276. doi: 10.4103/jips.jips_232_17.
4
Evaluating the Effect of Different Impression Techniques and Splinting Methods on the Dimensional Accuracy of Multiple Implant Impressions: An in vitro Study.评估不同印模技术和夹板固定方法对多个种植体印模尺寸精度的影响:一项体外研究。
J Contemp Dent Pract. 2018 Aug 1;19(8):1005-1012.
5
Dimensional accuracy of dental casts: influence of tray material, impression material, and time.牙模的尺寸精度:托盘材料、印模材料和时间的影响。
J Prosthodont. 2002 Jun;11(2):98-108.
6
Comparison of the accuracy of plastic and metal stock trays for implant impressions.比较用于种植体印模的塑料和金属托盘的准确性。
Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2012 May-Jun;27(3):544-50.
7
Comparison of Dimensional Accuracy of Three Different Impression Materials Using Three Different Techniques for Implant Impressions: An Study.三种不同印模技术在种植体印模中的三维精度比较:一项研究。
J Contemp Dent Pract. 2021 Feb 1;22(2):172-178.
8
Evaluation of Implant Impression Accuracy Using Different Trays and Techniques with a 3D Superimposition Method.采用三维叠加法评估不同托盘和技术的种植体印模精度。
Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2024 Aug 29;39(4):595-602. doi: 10.11607/jomi.10655.
9
Comparative evaluation of the effects of implant position, impression material, and tray type on implant impression accuracy.种植体位置、印模材料和托盘类型对种植体印模准确性影响的比较评估。
Implant Dent. 2014 Jun;23(3):283-8. doi: 10.1097/ID.0000000000000059.
10
The effect of tray selection, viscosity of impression material, and sequence of pour on the accuracy of dies made from dual-arch impressions.托盘选择、印模材料粘度以及灌注顺序对双牙弓印模制作的模型精度的影响。
J Prosthet Dent. 2003 Aug;90(2):143-9. doi: 10.1016/s0022-3913(03)00276-2.

引用本文的文献

1
Clinical evaluation of computer-aided design and three-dimensional printing for completely edentulous mandibular custom tray fabrication: assessing clinician satisfaction.计算机辅助设计和三维打印用于全口无牙下颌定制托盘制作的临床评估:评估临床医生满意度
Front Bioeng Biotechnol. 2025 May 21;13:1556651. doi: 10.3389/fbioe.2025.1556651. eCollection 2025.
2
Can transfer type and implant angulation affect impression accuracy? A 3D in vitro evaluation.转移类型和种植体角度会影响印模精度吗?一项 3D 体外评估。
Odontology. 2021 Oct;109(4):884-894. doi: 10.1007/s10266-021-00619-y. Epub 2021 Jun 1.
3
In vitro comparison of the accuracy of four intraoral scanners and three conventional impression methods for two neighboring implants.

本文引用的文献

1
Accuracy of different impression materials in parallel and nonparallel implants.不同印模材料在平行和非平行种植体中的准确性。
Dent Res J (Isfahan). 2015 Jul-Aug;12(4):315-22. doi: 10.4103/1735-3327.161429.
2
Accuracy of implant impressions for partially and completely edentulous patients: a systematic review.部分和全口无牙患者种植体印模的准确性:一项系统评价。
Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2014 Jul-Aug;29(4):836-45. doi: 10.11607/jomi.3625.
3
An in vitro comparison of the accuracy of implant impressions with coded healing abutments and different implant angulations.
四种口内扫描仪和三种传统印模方法在两个相邻种植体中的准确性的体外比较。
PLoS One. 2020 Feb 27;15(2):e0228266. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0228266. eCollection 2020.
种植体印模的准确性比较:编码愈合基台和不同种植体角度的体外研究。
J Prosthet Dent. 2013 Aug;110(2):90-100. doi: 10.1016/S0022-3913(13)60346-7.
4
Accuracy of complete-arch dental impressions: a new method of measuring trueness and precision.全牙弓口腔印模的准确性:一种测量准确性和精密度的新方法。
J Prosthet Dent. 2013 Feb;109(2):121-8. doi: 10.1016/S0022-3913(13)60028-1.
5
10-year survival and success rates of 511 titanium implants with a sandblasted and acid-etched surface: a retrospective study in 303 partially edentulous patients.511颗具有喷砂和酸蚀表面的钛种植体的10年生存率及成功率:对303例部分牙列缺损患者的回顾性研究
Clin Implant Dent Relat Res. 2012 Dec;14(6):839-51. doi: 10.1111/j.1708-8208.2012.00456.x.
6
Long-term evaluation of Astra Tech and Brånemark implants in patients treated with full-arch bridges. Results after 12-15 years.Astra Tech和Brånemark种植体用于全牙弓桥修复患者的长期评估。12至15年的结果
Clin Oral Implants Res. 2013 Oct;24(10):1144-51. doi: 10.1111/j.1600-0501.2012.02524.x. Epub 2012 Jul 4.
7
Comparison of the accuracy of plastic and metal stock trays for implant impressions.比较用于种植体印模的塑料和金属托盘的准确性。
Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2012 May-Jun;27(3):544-50.
8
Passive fit and accuracy of three dental implant impression techniques.三种牙种植体印模技术的被动适合性与准确性
Quintessence Int. 2012 Feb;43(2):119-25.
9
In vitro measurements of precision of fit of implant-supported frameworks. A comparison between "virtual" and "physical" assessments of fit using two different techniques of measurements.体外测量种植体支持的修复体的精度。使用两种不同测量技术对“虚拟”和“物理”拟合评估进行比较。
Clin Implant Dent Relat Res. 2012 May;14 Suppl 1:e175-82. doi: 10.1111/j.1708-8208.2011.00416.x. Epub 2011 Dec 15.
10
The effect of splint material rigidity in implant impression techniques.夹板材料刚性对种植体印模技术的影响。
Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2010 Nov-Dec;25(6):1153-8.