Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37940890›Full record

ArticleBMC oral health2023

Comparative evaluation of open tray impression technique: investigating the precision of four splinting materials in multiple implants.

Priyanka Patil, V N V Madhav, Abdulkhaliq Ali F Alshadidi, Ravinder S Saini, Lujain Ibrahim N Aldosari, Artak Heboyan, Seyed Ali Mosaddad, Saeed Awod Bin Hassan, Saurabh Chaturvedi

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
17citing papers in PubMed, 3 pooled it
6.4field-weighted citation impact, top 3% of its field
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

17 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 25 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Trial
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. [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 · 2024
    Review
  12. Article
  13. The current techniques in dorsal augmentation rhinoplasty: a comprehensive review.Maxillofacial plastic and reconstructive surgery · 2024
    Review
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Review
  17. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

9 authors at 3 institutions in 3 countries.

Priyanka PatilDepartment of Prosthodontics, YCMM & RDS's Dental College and Hospital, Nanded, Maharashtra, India.
V N V MadhavDepartment of Prosthodontics, YCMM & RDS's Dental College and Hospital, Nanded, Maharashtra, India.
Abdulkhaliq Ali F AlshadidiDental Technology Department, College of Medical Applied Sciences, King Khalid University, Abha, Saudi Arabia.
Ravinder S SainiDepartment of Dental Technology, COAMS, King Khalid University, Abha, Saudi Arabia.
Lujain Ibrahim N AldosariProsthodontics Department, College of Dentistry, King Khalid University, Abha, Saudi Arabia.
Artak HeboyanDepartment of Prosthodontics, Faculty of Stomatology, Yerevan State Medical University after Mkhitar Heratsi, Str. Koryun 2, Yerevan, Armenia, 0025. heboyan.artak@gmail.com.
Seyed Ali MosaddadStudent Research Committee, School of Dentistry, Shiraz University of Medical Sciences, Shiraz, Iran. mosaddad.sa@gmail.com.
Saeed Awod Bin HassanDepartment of Restorative Dental Sciences "RDS", College of Dentistry, King Khalid University, Abha, Saudi Arabia.
Saurabh ChaturvediProsthodontics Department, College of Dentistry, King Khalid University, Abha, Saudi Arabia.
King Khalid University · SAShiraz University of Medical Sciences · IRYerevan State Medical University · AM

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

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

Dental ImplantsAcrylic ResinsDental Impression MaterialsDental Impression TechniqueHumansModels, DentalAcrylic ResinsDental ImplantsDental Impression MaterialsAcrylic resinMultiple implantsSplinting materials

Identifiers

PMID37940890
PMCPMC10633989
OpenAlexW4388484333

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.