文献检索文档翻译深度研究
Suppr Zotero 插件Zotero 插件
邀请有礼套餐&价格历史记录

新学期,新优惠

限时优惠:9月1日-9月22日

30天高级会员仅需29元

1天体验卡首发特惠仅需5.99元

了解详情
不再提醒
插件&应用
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
高级版
套餐订阅购买积分包
AI 工具
文献检索文档翻译深度研究
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 @ 2025

不同种植体角度下,带锁种植体基台、夹子印模帽和开放托盘印模帽之间转移精度的比较:一项体外研究。

Comparison Of Transfer Accuracy Among Hexed Implant Mounts, Clips Impression Copings, And Open-Tray Impression Copings at Different Implant Angulations: An In Vitro Study.

作者信息

Seif Merna M, Hakim Ahmed A Abdel, Abouelkheir Hassan M, Negm Rana A

机构信息

Department of Prosthodontics, Faculty of Dentistry, Alexandria University, Champollion St., Azarita, Alexandria, 21527, Egypt.

Department of Oral Medicine, Periodontology, and Radiology, Faculty of Dentistry, Alexandria University, Alexandria, Egypt.

出版信息

BMC Oral Health. 2025 Jun 6;25(1):928. doi: 10.1186/s12903-025-06304-8.


DOI:10.1186/s12903-025-06304-8
PMID:40481492
原文链接:https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC12142942/
Abstract

BACKGROUND: Accurate impression registration is essential for transferring the three-dimensional (3D) implant position to the definitive cast, ensuring passivity of the final prosthesis. Various impression techniques have been developed to optimize accuracy, particularly for angulated implants. This study aimed to evaluate and compare the accuracy of open-tray impression copings, clips impression copings, and hexed implant mounts in transferring implant positions for both straight and angulated implants. METHODS: Five implants with different angulations (three at 0°, one at 15°, and one at 25°) were placed in an epoxy resin model, reflecting angulations commonly encountered in clinical practice. Thirty impressions were made using three types of impression copings: open-tray, clips (closed-tray), and hexed implant mounts (closed-tray), with ten impressions per group. Impressions were poured, and CBCT scans of the reference model and casts were obtained. The resulting DICOM files were converted to STL format using reverse engineering software to evaluate implant position accuracy based on shoulder deviation, apical deviation, angular deviation, and vertical shift. A significance level of p < 0.05 was set. One-way ANOVA and post hoc tests were performed; Tukey's HSD was applied when variance homogeneity was met, while the Games-Howell test was used when this assumption was violated. RESULTS: The study revealed that among the three coping types, the hexed implant mount demonstrated significantly higher angular deviation (p < 0.001), apical deviation (p = 0.003), and vertical shift (p < 0.001) for 25° angulated implants compared to the open-tray and clips copings. There were no significant differences between the open-tray and clips groups at this angulation. At 15° angulation, the hexed implant mount showed a significantly greater vertical shift (p = 0.011) compared to the open-tray coping, while no significant difference was observed between the clips and open-tray copings. For straight implants (0° angulation), all three coping types-open-tray, clips, and hexed implant mounts-showed no significant differences in any measured parameter. CONCLUSIONS: Open-tray and clips impression copings provide reliable implant position transfer for straight and angulated implants up to 25°. The hexed implant mount is accurate up to 15° angulation but shows increased deviations at 25°.

摘要

背景:准确的印模记录对于将三维(3D)种植体位置转移到最终模型上至关重要,可确保最终修复体的被动就位。已开发出各种印模技术以优化准确性,特别是对于成角种植体。本研究旨在评估和比较开放托盘印模帽、夹子印模帽和带六角形的种植体基台在转移直形和成角种植体位置时的准确性。 方法:将五颗具有不同角度的种植体(三颗0°、一颗15°和一颗25°)植入环氧树脂模型中,以反映临床实践中常见的角度。使用三种类型的印模帽制作30个印模:开放托盘、夹子(封闭托盘)和带六角形的种植体基台(封闭托盘),每组10个印模。灌注印模,并对参考模型和模型进行CBCT扫描。使用逆向工程软件将所得DICOM文件转换为STL格式,以根据肩部偏差、根尖偏差、角度偏差和垂直移位评估种植体位置准确性。设定显著性水平为p < 0.05。进行单因素方差分析和事后检验;当满足方差齐性时应用Tukey's HSD检验,当该假设不成立时使用Games-Howell检验。 结果:研究表明,在三种基台类型中,与开放托盘和夹子基台相比,对于25°成角种植体,带六角形的种植体基台在角度偏差(p < 0.001)、根尖偏差(p = 0.003)和垂直移位(p < 0.001)方面表现出显著更高的偏差。在该角度下,开放托盘组和夹子组之间无显著差异。在15°角度时,与开放托盘基台相比,带六角形的种植体基台显示出显著更大的垂直移位(p = 0.011),而夹子和开放托盘基台之间未观察到显著差异。对于直形种植体(0°角度), 所有三种基台类型——开放托盘、夹子和带六角形的种植体基台——在任何测量参数上均无显著差异。 结论:开放托盘和夹子印模帽可为直形和成角达25°的种植体提供可靠的种植体位置转移。带六角形的种植体基台在角度达15°时是准确的,但在25°时偏差增加。

https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/2520/12142942/902bb59e7dd6/12903_2025_6304_Fig12_HTML.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/2520/12142942/eb4e68369365/12903_2025_6304_Fig1_HTML.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/2520/12142942/6c63f75c30b6/12903_2025_6304_Fig2_HTML.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/2520/12142942/f42edc36876e/12903_2025_6304_Fig3_HTML.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/2520/12142942/fcb1aa7670a5/12903_2025_6304_Fig4_HTML.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/2520/12142942/26f1d2d6c4e2/12903_2025_6304_Fig5_HTML.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/2520/12142942/a513f7b22336/12903_2025_6304_Fig6_HTML.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/2520/12142942/a8dc29cd5893/12903_2025_6304_Fig7_HTML.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/2520/12142942/e9f80e04ed59/12903_2025_6304_Fig8_HTML.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/2520/12142942/adf78f80dfa4/12903_2025_6304_Fig9_HTML.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/2520/12142942/38a5495b699d/12903_2025_6304_Fig10_HTML.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/2520/12142942/895b049359fc/12903_2025_6304_Fig11_HTML.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/2520/12142942/902bb59e7dd6/12903_2025_6304_Fig12_HTML.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/2520/12142942/eb4e68369365/12903_2025_6304_Fig1_HTML.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/2520/12142942/6c63f75c30b6/12903_2025_6304_Fig2_HTML.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/2520/12142942/f42edc36876e/12903_2025_6304_Fig3_HTML.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/2520/12142942/fcb1aa7670a5/12903_2025_6304_Fig4_HTML.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/2520/12142942/26f1d2d6c4e2/12903_2025_6304_Fig5_HTML.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/2520/12142942/a513f7b22336/12903_2025_6304_Fig6_HTML.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/2520/12142942/a8dc29cd5893/12903_2025_6304_Fig7_HTML.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/2520/12142942/e9f80e04ed59/12903_2025_6304_Fig8_HTML.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/2520/12142942/adf78f80dfa4/12903_2025_6304_Fig9_HTML.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/2520/12142942/38a5495b699d/12903_2025_6304_Fig10_HTML.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/2520/12142942/895b049359fc/12903_2025_6304_Fig11_HTML.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/2520/12142942/902bb59e7dd6/12903_2025_6304_Fig12_HTML.jpg

相似文献

[1]
Comparison Of Transfer Accuracy Among Hexed Implant Mounts, Clips Impression Copings, And Open-Tray Impression Copings at Different Implant Angulations: An In Vitro Study.

BMC Oral Health. 2025-6-6

[2]
Comparison of accuracy of hexed and nonhexed pickup impression copings in a multiple variable impression setup for recording multiple straight and angulated implant positions: An study.

J Indian Prosthodont Soc. 2023

[3]
An in vitro comparison of the accuracy of implant impressions with coded healing abutments and different implant angulations.

J Prosthet Dent. 2013-8

[4]
The Accuracy of Casts Obtained Using Different Impression Techniques and Impression Materials in Combined Parallel and Angulated Implants: An In Vitro Study.

Cureus. 2024-4-28

[5]
Comparison of Dimensional Accuracy of Three Different Impression Materials Using Three Different Techniques for Implant Impressions: An Study.

J Contemp Dent Pract. 2021-2-1

[6]
Effect of different impression coping and scan body designs on the accuracy of conventional versus digital implant impressions: An in vitro study.

J Dent. 2024-7

[7]
Verification jig for implant-supported prostheses: A comparison of standard impressions with verification jigs made of different materials.

J Prosthet Dent. 2002-9

[8]
Three-dimensional accuracy of innovative implant-level impression techniques with plastic snap-on impression copings.

Dent Med Probl. 2021

[9]
An evaluation of impression techniques for multiple internal connection implant prostheses.

J Prosthet Dent. 2004-11

[10]
Accuracy of implant impressions with different impression coping types and shapes.

Clin Implant Dent Relat Res. 2009-10-5

本文引用的文献

[1]
Accuracy of 3 Intraoral Scanners in Recording Impressions for Full Arch Dental Implant-Supported Prosthesis: An In Vitro Study.

Med Sci Monit. 2024-12-8

[2]
Comparison of Plaque Accumulation Between Titanium and PEEK Healing Abutments.

J Funct Biomater. 2024-11-7

[3]
Accuracy of dynamic navigation compared to static surgical guides and the freehand approach in implant placement: a prospective clinical study.

Head Face Med. 2024-5-14

[4]
Evaluating the effects of splinting implant scan bodies intraorally on the trueness of complete arch digital scans: A clinical study.

J Prosthet Dent. 2024-10

[5]
Properties of a novel composite elastomeric polymer vinyl polyether siloxane in comparison to its parent materials: a systemic review and meta-analysis.

BMC Oral Health. 2024-1-9

[6]
Accuracy of digitally coded healing abutments: A systematic review.

Saudi Dent J. 2023-12

[7]
Evaluation of the accuracy of implant placement by using implant positional guide versus freehand: a prospective clinical study.

Int J Implant Dent. 2023-12-1

[8]
Accuracy assessment of implant placement with versus without a CAD/CAM surgical guide by novices versus specialists via the digital registration method: an in vitro randomized crossover study.

BMC Oral Health. 2023-6-27

[9]
Intraoral Scans of Full Dental Arches: An In Vitro Measurement Study of the Accuracy of Different Intraoral Scanners.

Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2023-3-8

[10]
Digital versus radiographic accuracy evaluation of guided implant surgery: an in vitro study.

BMC Oral Health. 2022-11-24

文献AI研究员

20分钟写一篇综述,助力文献阅读效率提升50倍

立即体验

用中文搜PubMed

大模型驱动的PubMed中文搜索引擎

马上搜索

推荐工具

医学文档翻译智能文献检索