ArticleBMC oral health2024
Effect of soft tissue thickness on accuracy of conventional and digital implant impression techniques.
Article in BMC oral health, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Impact of four gingival retraction techniques on gingival tissue displacement and sulcus depth during digital impression procedures.Clinical oral investigations · 2026Trial
- Effect of implant depth on accuracy: a comparative study using intraoral scanner and photogrammetry systems.The journal of advanced prosthodontics · 2026Article
- Digital Accuracy of Closed-Tray Implant Impressions: Influence of Polyvinyl Siloxane Viscosity and Subgingival Posterior Implant Angulation.Dentistry journal · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundPlacing implants deep sub-gingivally may affect the accuracy of implant impression techniques and the fit of final restoration. PURPOSE: The aim of this in-vitro study was to evaluate the effect of soft tissue thickness on accuracy of conventional and digital implant impression techniques.
methodsFour parallel implant analogues (A, B, C, D) placed in each of two epoxy resin models representing edentulous mandible covered by flexible polyurethane material with two different thickness two mm and four mm. A total of sixty impressions performed, thirty impressions for each model divided into four groups (n = 15 per group) GI (C2mm) open tray impression with two mm implant depth, GII (C4mm) open tray impression with four mm implant depth, GIII (D2mm) digital impression with two mm implant depth, GIV (D 4 mm) digital impression with four mm implant depth. Impressions from open tray technique were poured to get stone casts while impressions from digital scanning technique were printed as three-dimensional printed casts. The six inter-implant distances between analogues were measured using Co-ordinate measuring machine, deviations compared to reference models were calculated. Data was collected, tabulated and statistically analyzed using One-way ANOVA test to detect significances between groups.
resultsFor conventional impressions there was significant difference between C2mm/C4mm (P < 0.001) regarding interimplant distance, while in digital impressions there was no significant difference between D2mm/D4mm AB(p = 0.110), BC(p = 0.066), CD(p = 0.710), AD(p = 0.084), AC(p = 0.067) and BD(p = 0.072). There was significant difference between conventional and digital impression techniques C2mm/D2mm, C4mm/D4mm (P < 0.001).
conclusionWithin the limitations of this in-vitro study digital impressions provide more accurate outcomes with implants placed deeper subgingivally than conventional impressions.
trial registrationRetrospectively registered.
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.