牙种植体五种不同方位印模技术的准确性。

IF 1.7 4区 医学 Q3 DENTISTRY, ORAL SURGERY & MEDICINE
Hyo-Seon Kim, Jae-Hyun Lee, Su Young Lee
{"title":"牙种植体五种不同方位印模技术的准确性。","authors":"Hyo-Seon Kim,&nbsp;Jae-Hyun Lee,&nbsp;Su Young Lee","doi":"10.11607/jomi.9441","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Purpose: </strong>The purpose of this study was to evaluate the impression accuracy of two implants placed in different orientations and compare the impression accuracy obtained with the dual-arch impression technique using hybrid impression copings and the conventional open-tray impression technique.</p><p><strong>Materials and methods: </strong>Five mandibular dentiform models were prepared by placing implants in the second premolar and second molar regions in the following different orientations: parallel to each other; 15-degree mesiodistal angulation; 30-degree mesiodistal angulation; 15-degree buccolingual angulation; and 30-degree buccolingual angulation. After making 10 impressions for each model with the open-tray impression technique and dual-arch impression technique with hybrid impression copings, cast models were fabricated for each impression (n = 10). Scan bodies were mounted on the five dentiform models and the fabricated 100 cast models were scanned using a desktop scanner. The three-dimensional deviation of the scan bodies on the cast models was calculated and compared to the reference data from the dentiform models. A two-way analysis of variance was conducted (α = .05).</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The root mean square deviation values obtained from the implants placed with 30-degree mesiodistal angulation were 93.05 ± 6.21 μm with the open-tray impression technique and 104.01 ± 8.89 μm with the dual-arch impression technique, which were the largest deviation values for both techniques (P < .001). Compared to the open-tray impression technique, the dual-arch impression technique with the hybrid impression copings showed significantly lower accuracy when the angulation between the implants was 15 degrees mesiodistally (P < .001), 30 degrees mesiodistally (P = .016), or 30 degrees buccolingually (P < .001). However, there was no significant difference between the accuracy of the two impression techniques for parallel implants (P = .74).</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>When the two implants were inclined 30 degrees mesiodistally, both implant impression techniques showed the largest deviation and the dual-arch impression technique showed lower accuracy compared to the conventional open-tray impression technique. Parallel placement of implants may improve impression accuracy and enable use of the dual-arch impression technique.</p>","PeriodicalId":50298,"journal":{"name":"International Journal of Oral & Maxillofacial Implants","volume":"37 5","pages":"997-1002"},"PeriodicalIF":1.7000,"publicationDate":"2022-09-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Accuracy of Impression Techniques for Dental Implants Placed in Five Different Orientations.\",\"authors\":\"Hyo-Seon Kim,&nbsp;Jae-Hyun Lee,&nbsp;Su Young Lee\",\"doi\":\"10.11607/jomi.9441\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Purpose: </strong>The purpose of this study was to evaluate the impression accuracy of two implants placed in different orientations and compare the impression accuracy obtained with the dual-arch impression technique using hybrid impression copings and the conventional open-tray impression technique.</p><p><strong>Materials and methods: </strong>Five mandibular dentiform models were prepared by placing implants in the second premolar and second molar regions in the following different orientations: parallel to each other; 15-degree mesiodistal angulation; 30-degree mesiodistal angulation; 15-degree buccolingual angulation; and 30-degree buccolingual angulation. After making 10 impressions for each model with the open-tray impression technique and dual-arch impression technique with hybrid impression copings, cast models were fabricated for each impression (n = 10). Scan bodies were mounted on the five dentiform models and the fabricated 100 cast models were scanned using a desktop scanner. The three-dimensional deviation of the scan bodies on the cast models was calculated and compared to the reference data from the dentiform models. A two-way analysis of variance was conducted (α = .05).</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The root mean square deviation values obtained from the implants placed with 30-degree mesiodistal angulation were 93.05 ± 6.21 μm with the open-tray impression technique and 104.01 ± 8.89 μm with the dual-arch impression technique, which were the largest deviation values for both techniques (P < .001). Compared to the open-tray impression technique, the dual-arch impression technique with the hybrid impression copings showed significantly lower accuracy when the angulation between the implants was 15 degrees mesiodistally (P < .001), 30 degrees mesiodistally (P = .016), or 30 degrees buccolingually (P < .001). However, there was no significant difference between the accuracy of the two impression techniques for parallel implants (P = .74).</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>When the two implants were inclined 30 degrees mesiodistally, both implant impression techniques showed the largest deviation and the dual-arch impression technique showed lower accuracy compared to the conventional open-tray impression technique. Parallel placement of implants may improve impression accuracy and enable use of the dual-arch impression technique.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":50298,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"International Journal of Oral & Maxillofacial Implants\",\"volume\":\"37 5\",\"pages\":\"997-1002\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.7000,\"publicationDate\":\"2022-09-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"1\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"International Journal of Oral & Maxillofacial Implants\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.11607/jomi.9441\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"DENTISTRY, ORAL SURGERY & MEDICINE\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"International Journal of Oral & Maxillofacial Implants","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.11607/jomi.9441","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"DENTISTRY, ORAL SURGERY & MEDICINE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

摘要

目的:本研究的目的是评估两个种植体放置在不同方位的印模精度,并比较使用混合印模的双弓印模技术和传统的开盘印模技术所获得的印模精度。材料与方法:在第二前磨牙区和第二磨牙区按以下不同方向放置种植体,制备5个下颌牙形态模型:相互平行;15度中远端成角;30度中远端成角;15度钩舌角;和30度舌角。采用开盘压模技术和双弓压模技术混合压模盖板对每个模型制作10个压模后,为每个压模制作铸造模型(n = 10)。将扫描体安装在5个牙形模型上,并使用桌面扫描仪扫描制作的100个铸型模型。计算了扫描体在铸型模型上的三维偏差,并与牙形模型的参考数据进行了比较。进行双向方差分析(α = 0.05)。结果:以30度中远端成角放置种植体时,开盘压印技术的均方根偏差值为93.05±6.21 μm,双弓压印技术的均方根偏差值为104.01±8.89 μm,两者偏差值最大(P < 0.001)。与开盘压印技术相比,当种植体之间的角度为中远15度(P < .001)、中远30度(P = .016)或上颊30度(P < .001)时,双弓压印技术与混合压印套管的准确性显著降低。然而,两种印模技术对平行种植体的准确性没有显著差异(P = 0.74)。结论:当两个种植体中向倾斜30度时,两种种植体印模技术的偏差最大,双弓印模技术与传统开盘印模技术相比精度较低。平行放置植入物可以提高印模精度,并可以使用双弓印模技术。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Accuracy of Impression Techniques for Dental Implants Placed in Five Different Orientations.

Purpose: The purpose of this study was to evaluate the impression accuracy of two implants placed in different orientations and compare the impression accuracy obtained with the dual-arch impression technique using hybrid impression copings and the conventional open-tray impression technique.

Materials and methods: Five mandibular dentiform models were prepared by placing implants in the second premolar and second molar regions in the following different orientations: parallel to each other; 15-degree mesiodistal angulation; 30-degree mesiodistal angulation; 15-degree buccolingual angulation; and 30-degree buccolingual angulation. After making 10 impressions for each model with the open-tray impression technique and dual-arch impression technique with hybrid impression copings, cast models were fabricated for each impression (n = 10). Scan bodies were mounted on the five dentiform models and the fabricated 100 cast models were scanned using a desktop scanner. The three-dimensional deviation of the scan bodies on the cast models was calculated and compared to the reference data from the dentiform models. A two-way analysis of variance was conducted (α = .05).

Results: The root mean square deviation values obtained from the implants placed with 30-degree mesiodistal angulation were 93.05 ± 6.21 μm with the open-tray impression technique and 104.01 ± 8.89 μm with the dual-arch impression technique, which were the largest deviation values for both techniques (P < .001). Compared to the open-tray impression technique, the dual-arch impression technique with the hybrid impression copings showed significantly lower accuracy when the angulation between the implants was 15 degrees mesiodistally (P < .001), 30 degrees mesiodistally (P = .016), or 30 degrees buccolingually (P < .001). However, there was no significant difference between the accuracy of the two impression techniques for parallel implants (P = .74).

Conclusion: When the two implants were inclined 30 degrees mesiodistally, both implant impression techniques showed the largest deviation and the dual-arch impression technique showed lower accuracy compared to the conventional open-tray impression technique. Parallel placement of implants may improve impression accuracy and enable use of the dual-arch impression technique.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
3.30
自引率
5.00%
发文量
115
审稿时长
6 months
期刊介绍: Edited by Steven E. Eckert, DDS, MS ISSN (Print): 0882-2786 ISSN (Online): 1942-4434 This highly regarded, often-cited journal integrates clinical and scientific data to improve methods and results of oral and maxillofacial implant therapy. It presents pioneering research, technology, clinical applications, reviews of the literature, seminal studies, emerging technology, position papers, and consensus studies, as well as the many clinical and therapeutic innovations that ensue as a result of these efforts. The editorial board is composed of recognized opinion leaders in their respective areas of expertise and reflects the international reach of the journal. Under their leadership, JOMI maintains its strong scientific integrity while expanding its influence within the field of implant dentistry. JOMI’s popular regular feature "Thematic Abstract Review" presents a review of abstracts of recently published articles on a specific topical area of interest each issue.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信