• 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

评价传统和数字化种植体印模技术在双侧游离缺失病例中的准确性:一项随机临床试验。

Evaluation of the accuracy of conventional and digital implant impression techniques in bilateral distal extension cases: a randomized clinical trial.

机构信息

Assistant lecturer, Prosthodontic department, Faculty of Dentistry, Tanta University, Tanta, Egypt.

Professor, Prosthodontic department, Faculty of Dentistry, Tanta University, Tanta, Egypt.

出版信息

BMC Oral Health. 2024 Jul 5;24(1):764. doi: 10.1186/s12903-024-04495-0.

DOI:10.1186/s12903-024-04495-0
PMID:38970004
原文链接:https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC11227137/
Abstract

BACKGROUND

This clinical study aims to evaluate the accuracy of the conventional implant impression techniques compared to the digital impression ones in bilateral distal extension cases.

METHODS

A total of 32 implants were placed in eight patients missing all mandibular posterior teeth except the first premolars. Each patient received a total of four implants, with two implants placed on each side, in order to provide support for three units of screw-retained zirconia restorations. Following osteointegration, the same patient underwent two implant-level impression techniques: Conventional open-tray impressions CII (splinted pick-up) and digital implant impressions DII with TRIOS 3 Shape intraoral scanner. The accuracy of impressions was evaluated utilizing a three-dimensional superimposition analysis of standard tessellation language (STL) files. Subsequently, the scan bodies were segmented using Gom inspect software to measure three-dimensional deviations in a color-coding map. Data were statistically analyzed using the Kruskal Wallis test and then a post-hoc test to determine the significance level (P < 0.05).

RESULTS

The study revealed that higher angular and positional deviations were shown toward distal scan bodies compared to mesial ones for both impression techniques. However, this difference was not statistically significant (P > 0.05).

CONCLUSION

Splinted open-tray conventional impression and intraoral scanning implant impression techniques have demonstrated comparable accuracy.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

Clinical Trials.gov Registration ID NCT05912725. Registered 22/06/ 2023- Retrospectively registered, https://register.

CLINICALTRIALS

gov .

摘要

背景

本临床研究旨在评估传统种植体印模技术与数字化印模技术在双侧远中游离缺失病例中的准确性。

方法

共将 32 颗种植体植入 8 名患者体内,这些患者下颌后牙除了第一前磨牙外全部缺失。每位患者共植入四颗种植体,每侧两颗,以支撑三颗螺丝固位氧化锆修复体。在骨整合后,同一位患者接受了两种种植体水平印模技术:传统开放式托盘印模 CII(夹板式取模)和数字化种植体印模 DII,使用 TRIOS 3Shape 口内扫描仪。使用标准 tessellation language (STL) 文件的三维叠加分析评估印模的准确性。随后,使用 Gom inspect 软件对扫描体进行分割,以在彩色编码图中测量三维偏差。使用 Kruskal Wallis 检验和事后检验来确定显著性水平(P < 0.05)对数据进行统计分析。

结果

研究表明,两种印模技术的远中扫描体的角度和位置偏差均高于近中扫描体,但差异无统计学意义(P > 0.05)。

结论

夹板式开放式托盘传统印模和口内扫描种植体印模技术具有相当的准确性。

试验注册

ClinicalTrials.gov 注册号 NCT05912725。2023 年 6 月 22 日注册-回顾性注册,https://register.

临床试验

gov.

https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/c529/11227137/cdfaf4a5ae72/12903_2024_4495_Fig9_HTML.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/c529/11227137/e0c0ffbbfc4b/12903_2024_4495_Fig1_HTML.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/c529/11227137/82899c257fe6/12903_2024_4495_Fig2_HTML.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/c529/11227137/89337422a959/12903_2024_4495_Fig4_HTML.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/c529/11227137/6775c76631b1/12903_2024_4495_Fig6_HTML.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/c529/11227137/98332c20974f/12903_2024_4495_Fig8_HTML.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/c529/11227137/cdfaf4a5ae72/12903_2024_4495_Fig9_HTML.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/c529/11227137/e0c0ffbbfc4b/12903_2024_4495_Fig1_HTML.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/c529/11227137/82899c257fe6/12903_2024_4495_Fig2_HTML.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/c529/11227137/89337422a959/12903_2024_4495_Fig4_HTML.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/c529/11227137/6775c76631b1/12903_2024_4495_Fig6_HTML.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/c529/11227137/98332c20974f/12903_2024_4495_Fig8_HTML.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/c529/11227137/cdfaf4a5ae72/12903_2024_4495_Fig9_HTML.jpg

相似文献

1
Evaluation of the accuracy of conventional and digital implant impression techniques in bilateral distal extension cases: a randomized clinical trial.评价传统和数字化种植体印模技术在双侧游离缺失病例中的准确性:一项随机临床试验。
BMC Oral Health. 2024 Jul 5;24(1):764. doi: 10.1186/s12903-024-04495-0.
2
Accuracy of digital and conventional implant-level impression techniques for maxillary full-arch screw-retained prosthesis: A crossover randomized trial.数字化和传统种植体水平印模技术用于上颌全口螺钉固位义齿的准确性:一项交叉随机试验。
Clin Implant Dent Relat Res. 2024 Aug;26(4):714-723. doi: 10.1111/cid.13336. Epub 2024 May 10.
3
In vitro comparison of accuracy between conventional and digital impression using elastomeric materials and two intra-oral scanning devices.体外比较使用弹性体材料和两种口内扫描设备的常规和数字印模的准确性。
J Esthet Restor Dent. 2024 Aug;36(8):1179-1198. doi: 10.1111/jerd.13227. Epub 2024 Mar 27.
4
Digital assessment of the accuracy of implant impression techniques in free end saddle partially edentulous patients. A controlled clinical trial.游离端鞍式局部牙列缺损患者种植印模技术准确性的数字化评估。一项对照临床试验。
BMC Oral Health. 2022 Nov 12;22(1):486. doi: 10.1186/s12903-022-02505-7.
5
A Clinical Comparative Study of 3-Dimensional Accuracy between Digital and Conventional Implant Impression Techniques.数字化与传统种植体印模技术三维精度的临床对比研究。
J Prosthodont. 2019 Apr;28(4):e902-e908. doi: 10.1111/jopr.12764. Epub 2018 Feb 9.
6
Digital versus conventional implant impressions for edentulous patients: accuracy outcomes.无牙患者的数字化与传统种植体印模:准确性结果
Clin Oral Implants Res. 2016 Apr;27(4):465-72. doi: 10.1111/clr.12567. Epub 2015 Feb 13.
7
Effect of different impression coping and scan body designs on the accuracy of conventional versus digital implant impressions: An in vitro study.不同印模托盘和扫描体设计对传统与数字化种植体印模精度的影响:一项体外研究。
J Dent. 2024 Jul;146:105045. doi: 10.1016/j.jdent.2024.105045. Epub 2024 May 5.
8
In vitro comparative study between complete arch conventional implant impressions and digital implant scans with scannable pick-up impression copings.体外研究:全牙弓传统种植体取模与数字化种植体扫描配合扫描式印模转移杆的对比。
J Prosthet Dent. 2024 Mar;131(3):475.e1-475.e7. doi: 10.1016/j.prosdent.2023.12.012. Epub 2024 Jan 5.
9
Three-Dimensional Accuracy of Conventional Versus Digital Complete Arch Implant Impressions.传统与数字化全牙弓种植印模三维精度比较。
J Prosthodont. 2021 Feb;30(2):163-170. doi: 10.1111/jopr.13264. Epub 2020 Sep 26.
10
Digital vs. conventional full-arch implant impressions: a comparative study.数字化与传统全口种植体印模:一项对比研究。
Clin Oral Implants Res. 2017 Nov;28(11):1360-1367. doi: 10.1111/clr.12994. Epub 2016 Dec 31.

引用本文的文献

1
Evaluating the accuracy of CEREC intraoral scanners for inlay restorations: impact of adjacent tooth materials.评估 CEREC 口内扫描仪用于嵌体修复的准确性:邻牙材料的影响。
BMC Oral Health. 2024 Sep 3;24(1):1033. doi: 10.1186/s12903-024-04794-6.

本文引用的文献

1
Digital assessment of the accuracy of implant impression techniques in free end saddle partially edentulous patients. A controlled clinical trial.游离端鞍式局部牙列缺损患者种植印模技术准确性的数字化评估。一项对照临床试验。
BMC Oral Health. 2022 Nov 12;22(1):486. doi: 10.1186/s12903-022-02505-7.
2
In vitro comparative analysis of scanning accuracy of intraoral and laboratory scanners in measuring the distance between multiple implants.体外比较分析口内扫描仪和实验室扫描仪测量多个种植体之间距离的扫描精度。
Int J Implant Dent. 2022 Apr 13;8(1):18. doi: 10.1186/s40729-022-00416-4.
3
A clinical study comparing digital scanning and conventional impression making for implant-supported prostheses: A crossover clinical trial.
一种比较数字化扫描和传统印模制取用于种植体支持式修复体的临床研究:一项交叉临床试验。
J Prosthet Dent. 2022 Jul;128(1):42-48. doi: 10.1016/j.prosdent.2020.12.043. Epub 2021 Feb 16.
4
A comparative clinical study on the transfer accuracy of conventional and digital implant impressions using a new reference key-based method.一种新的基于参考键的方法比较传统和数字种植体印模转移精度的临床研究。
Clin Oral Implants Res. 2021 Apr;32(4):460-469. doi: 10.1111/clr.13715. Epub 2021 Feb 2.
5
Digital vs Conventional Implant Impressions: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.数字化与传统种植体印模:系统评价和荟萃分析。
J Prosthodont. 2020 Oct;29(8):660-678. doi: 10.1111/jopr.13211. Epub 2020 Jul 16.
6
Improved scanning accuracy with newly designed scan bodies: An in vitro study comparing digital versus conventional impression techniques for complete-arch implant rehabilitation.全新设计的扫描体提高了扫描精度:一项体外研究比较了全口种植义齿修复中数字化与传统印模技术。
Clin Oral Implants Res. 2020 Jul;31(7):625-633. doi: 10.1111/clr.13598. Epub 2020 Apr 3.
7
Accuracy of Digital and Conventional Full-Arch Impressions in Patients: An Update.患者数字化与传统全牙弓印模的准确性:最新进展
J Clin Med. 2020 Mar 4;9(3):688. doi: 10.3390/jcm9030688.
8
Effects of Scanning Strategy and Scanner Type on the Accuracy of Intraoral Scans: A New Approach for Assessing the Accuracy of Scanned Data.扫描策略和扫描仪类型对口腔内扫描准确性的影响:评估扫描数据准确性的新方法。
J Prosthodont. 2020 Jul;29(6):518-523. doi: 10.1111/jopr.13158. Epub 2020 Jun 26.
9
Clinical Study of the Influence of Ambient Light Scanning Conditions on the Accuracy (Trueness and Precision) of an Intraoral Scanner.环境光扫描条件对口腔内扫描仪准确性(准确性和精密度)影响的临床研究。
J Prosthodont. 2020 Feb;29(2):107-113. doi: 10.1111/jopr.13135. Epub 2019 Dec 30.
10
Conventional open-tray impression versus intraoral digital scan for implant-level complete-arch impression.常规开口托盘印模与口腔内数字化扫描在种植体支持全口印模中的比较。
J Prosthet Dent. 2019 Dec;122(6):543-549. doi: 10.1016/j.prosdent.2018.10.018. Epub 2019 Apr 5.