References : A prospective clinical study on implant impression accuracy [1]
Khalifa N, Allen PF, Abu-bakr NH, Abdel-Rahman ME. Factors associated with tooth loss and prosthodontic status among Sudanese adults. J Oral Sci. 2012;54:303–12.
Oliver RC, Brown LJ. Periodontal diseases and tooth loss. Periodontol 2000. 1993;2:117–27.
Hollister MC, Weintraub JA. The association of oral status with systemic health, quality of life, and economic productivity. J Dent Educ. 1993;57:901–12.
Ashley ET, Covington LL, Bishop BG, Breault LG. Ailing and failing endosseous dental implants: a literature review. J Contemp Dent Pract. 2003;15:35–50.
Sorrentino R, Gherlone EF, Calesini G, Zarone F. Effect of implant angulation, connection length, and impression material on the dimensional accuracy of implant impressions: an in vitro comparative study. Clin Implant Dent Relat Res. 2010;12(Suppl 1):e63–76.
Lee H, Ercoli C, Funkenbusch PD, Feng C. Effect of subgingival depth of implant placement on the dimensional accuracy of the implant impression: an in vitro study. J Prosthet Dent. 2008;99:107–13.
Baig MR. Multi-unit implant impression accuracy: a review of the literature. Quintessence Int. 2014;45:39–51.
Osman MS, Ziada HM, Abubakr NH, Suliman AM. Implant impression accuracy of parallel and non-parallel implants: a comparative in-vitro analysis of open and closed tray techniques. Int J Implant Dent. 2019;19(5):2–10. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40729-019-0159-5.
Stimmelmayr M, Guth JF, Erdelt K, Happe A, Schlee M, Beuer F. Clinical study evaluating the discrepancy of two different impression techniques of four implants in an edentulous jaw. Clin Oral Investig. 2013;17:1929–35.
SA. New classification of physical status. Anesthesiology. 1963;24:111.D.G.
Atsumi M, Park SH, Wang HL. Methods used to assess implant stability: current status. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2007;22:743–54.
Martin W, Lewis E, Nicol A. Local risk factors for implant therapy. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2009;24(Suppl):28–38.
Sethi A, Kaus T, Sochor P. The use of angulated abutments in implant dentistry: five-year clinical results of an ongoing prospective study. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2000;15:801–10.
Lee SJ, Gallucci GO. Digital vs. conventional implant impressions: efficiency outcomes. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2013;24:111–5.
Serial posts:
- Introduction : A prospective clinical study on implant impression accuracy
- Materials and methods : A prospective clinical study on implant impression accuracy [1]
- Materials and methods : A prospective clinical study on implant impression accuracy [2]
- Materials and methods : A prospective clinical study on implant impression accuracy [3]
- Results : A prospective clinical study on implant impression accuracy
- Discussion : A prospective clinical study on implant impression accuracy [1]
- Discussion : A prospective clinical study on implant impression accuracy [2]
- Discussion : A prospective clinical study on implant impression accuracy [3]
- Conclusion : A prospective clinical study on implant impression accuracy
- Availability of data and materials : A prospective clinical study on implant impression accuracy
- References : A prospective clinical study on implant impression accuracy [1]
- References : A prospective clinical study on implant impression accuracy [2]
- References : A prospective clinical study on implant impression accuracy [3]
- Acknowledgements : A prospective clinical study on implant impression accuracy
- Funding : A prospective clinical study on implant impression accuracy
- Author information : A prospective clinical study on implant impression accuracy
- Ethics declarations : A prospective clinical study on implant impression accuracy
- Additional information : A prospective clinical study on implant impression accuracy
- Rights and permissions : A prospective clinical study on implant impression accuracy
- About this article : A prospective clinical study on implant impression accuracy
- Table 1 The t test for horizontal measurements of the intraoral and master cast in the open and closed tray techniques : A prospective clinical study on implant impression accuracy
- Table 2 Open and closed tray techniques accuracy using the Wilcoxon signed-rank test : A prospective clinical study on implant impression accuracy
- Table 3 Open and closed tray technique accuracy in the maxilla and mandible, using the Mann-Whitney U test : A prospective clinical study on implant impression accuracy
- Table 4 Impression technique accuracy in the anterior and posterior regions using the Mann-Whitney U test : A prospective clinical study on implant impression accuracy
- Table 5 The horizontal discrepancies according to implant position in the arch, using the Mann-Whitney U test : A prospective clinical study on implant impression accuracy
- Table 6 Chi-square test of marginal discrepancies for the impression techniques, by implant position in the arch : A prospective clinical study on implant impression accuracy
- Fig. 1. Horizontal measurements between the two impression copings in the patient’s mouth : A prospective clinical study on implant
- Fig. 2. Light cure acrylic resin verification jig in the patient’s mouth : A prospective clinical study on implant
- Fig. 3. Sample distribution according to arch and position : A prospective clinical study on implant
- Fig. 4. Normality line of the distribution horizontal measurement data for the intraoral and working casts : A prospective clinical study on implant
- Fig. 5. Marginal discrepancy distribution in the open and closed techniques, maxillary mandibular, and anterior and posterior regions : A prospective clinical study on implant