ArticleBMC oral health2023
Comparative evaluation of open tray impression technique: investigating the precision of four splinting materials in multiple implants.
Article in BMC oral health, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 17 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.
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
17 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 25 citations in OpenAlex.
- Efficacy of different adhesive systems in bonding direct resin composite restorations: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Evidence-based dentistry · 2025Pooled it
- Importance of periodontal phenotype in periodontics and restorative dentistry: a systematic review.BMC oral health · 2024Pooled it
- Implant-supported prosthetic rehabilitation after Ameloblastomas treatment: a systematic review.BMC oral health · 2023Pooled it
- Trial
- In Vivo Complete Arch Implant Impressions: Comparison of the Linear Precision of Digital and Conventional Techniques.International dental journal · 2026Article
- Dimensional accuracy of three techniques for full-arch implant impressions: orthodontic elastomeric chain versus floss-resin and non-splinted methods.BMC oral health · 2026Article
- In Vitro Comparison of the Dimensional Accuracy of Implant Impressions Using Custom Acrylic Trays and Prefabricated Self-Perforating Trays: Protocol for a Comparative Evaluation Study.JMIR research protocols · 2026Article
- Digital versus conventional impression accuracy for complete-arch implant rehabilitation: AnBioinformation · 2026Article
- Surface Conditioning Methods and Their Effects on Micro-Tensile Bond Strength and Micro-Chemical Properties of Glass-Infiltrated Zirconia: An In Vitro Study.Medical science monitor : international medical journal of experimental and clinical research · 2025Article
- Article
- [Research progress on accuracy of intraoral digital impressions for implant-supported prostheses in edentulous jaw].Zhejiang da xue xue bao. Yi xue ban = Journal of Zhejiang University. Medical sciences · 2024Review
- Article
- The current techniques in dorsal augmentation rhinoplasty: a comprehensive review.Maxillofacial plastic and reconstructive surgery · 2024Review
- Evaluation of the effect of chemical disinfection and ultraviolet disinfection on the dimensional stability of polyether impression material: an in-vitro study.BMC oral health · 2024Article
- Evaluation and assessment of the wettabilty and water contact angle of modified poly methyl methacrylate denture base materials against PEEK in cast partial denture framework: an in vitro study.BMC oral health · 2024Article
- The current applications of nano and biomaterials in drug delivery of dental implant.BMC oral health · 2024Review
- Biomimetic approach to strengthen the incisal fracture composite build-up: an in vitro study.BMC oral health · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors at 3 institutions in 3 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThis study aimed to determine the relative positioning accuracy of multiple implants utilizing four distinct types of splinting materials.
methodsThe purpose of this in-vitro study was to compare the precision of four splinting materials in an open tray impression technique in multiple implant situations. Based on the material used for splinting, four groups were made (n = 40)- Group A: Conventional Method, Group B: Prefabricated Pattern Resin Framework, Group C: Prefabricated Metal Framework, Group D: Light Cured Pattern Resin, these groups were compared with the master model. A heat-cured clear acrylic resin and a master model were constructed. A pilot milling machine drill was used to drill four parallel holes in the anterior and premolar regions, which were later labeled as A, B, C, and D positions from right to left. Then, sequential drilling was carried out, and four 3.75‑mm diameter and 13-mm long ADIN implant analogs with internal hex were placed in the acrylic model using a surveyor for proper orientation. The impression posts were then manually screwed to the implant analogs using an open tray, and they were secured to the implants using 10 mm flat head guide pins with a 15 N.cm torque. 10 Open tray polyether impressions were made, and casts were poured. Each splinting method's distortion values were measured using a coordinate measuring machine capable of recordings in the X-, Y-, and Z-axes. Comparison of mean distances for X1, X2, and X3 was made using the Kruskal-Wallis test, and Pairwise comparison was done using Post Hoc Tukey's Test.
resultsThe differences between the groups were significant when assessing the distances X1, X2, and X3 (p < 0.05). The comparison of deviations between the groups revealed a statistically significant difference (p < 0.05) for the deviation distance X3 but not for the deviation distances X1 and X2. For distance Y1, the difference between the groups was statistically significant (p0.05), but it was not significant for distances Y2 and Y3. A statistically significant difference was seen in the comparison between the groups (p < 0.05) for the deviation distances Y1, Y2, and Y3. The results were statistically significant for the distance Z1 comparisons, namely, control vs. Group A (p = 0.012), control vs. Group B (p = 0.049), control vs. Group C (p = 0.048), and control vs. Group D (p = 0.021), and for distance Z3 comparison for control vs. Group A (p = 0.033). The results were statistically insignificant for the distance Z2 comparisons (p > 0.05).
conclusionsAll splinting materials produced master casts with measurements in close proximity to the reference model. However, prefabricated pattern resin bars splinting showed the highest accuracy among the studied techniques. The most recent splinting techniques using prefabricated metal framework and light-cure pattern resin showed similar accuracy.
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.