ReviewClinical and experimental dental research2023
Accuracy of tooth-implant impressions: Comparison of five different techniques.
Review in Clinical and experimental dental research, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
4 citing papers in PubMed, 10 citations in OpenAlex.
- Verification Index for the Repositioning of a Single Implant Analog in the Correct Place: A Clinical Technical Case Report.Reports (MDPI) · 2026Article
- Impact of scanning errors on the trueness of digital implant impressions.International journal of implant dentistry · 2026Article
- Impact of abutment angulation on the accuracy of closed tray versus open tray implant impressions using noble bio-care active implants.Bioinformation · 2025Article
- Accuracy of tooth-implant impressions: Comparison of five different techniques.Clinical and experimental dental research · 2023Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeTo compare the accuracy of five different tooth-implant impression techniques. MATERIALS AND
methodsIn this in vitro, experimental study, an acrylic model containing one bone-level Straumann dental implant at the site of maxillary first molar and an adjacent second premolar prepared for a porcelain fused to metal restoration was used. Impressions were made from the model using five different one-step tooth-implant impression techniques including scanning with an intraoral scanner, occlusal matrix, wax relief, closed-tray, and open-tray techniques. Each technique was repeated 15 times. The impressions were poured with dental stone, and the obtained casts were scanned by a laboratory scanner. The scan file of each technique was compared with the scan file of the original acrylic model by Geomagic Design X software. Data were analyzed by one-way analysis of variance, and Tamhane's post-hoc test (α = 0.05).
resultsFor dental implant, intraoral scanning had the highest accuracy (0.1004 mm
conclusionThe compared simultaneous tooth-implant impression techniques had comparable accuracy with no significant difference.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.