ArticleBMC oral health2025
Optical measurement methods of the 3D-position stability of implant-abutment connections - an in vitro study.
Article in BMC oral health, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Portable TD-OCT Scanner for Dental Use.Bioengineering (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionFor ideal occlusion and passive fit of implant-retained prosthetic restorations minimal tolerance of the position of the abutment in the implant after dis- and reassembly is essential. Methods to examine the three-dimensional (3D) positional stability of implant-abutment connections (IAC) vary and their accuracy and applicability have not been assessed. The aim of this study was to evaluate non-contact optical measurement devices for 3D-feasibility, accuracy, repeatability, time efficiency and complexity of use.
methodsFive devices capable of contactless, optical methods (Profile Projector; Digital Image Correlation (DIC); Profilometer; Confocal Technology; Coordinate Measuring Machine (CMM)) were examined regarding their 3D-feasibility, accuracy, repeatability, time efficiency and complexity. The parameters were quantified and scored using a decision matrix. In an experimental set-up the method (device) with the highest score was used to measure the position stability as follows: four implants with a butt joint (BJ) and a conical (CON) IAC were embedded in an aluminum block and dis- and reassembled ten times with the abutment screw being hand-tightened (∑1-5) and torque-tightened (∑6-10).
resultsThe CMM achieved the highest score in the decision matrix with 40/50 points (range: 10-50 points; 10 requirements not met, 50: requirements fully met) while the Profile Projector, the DIC, the Profilometer and the Confocal Technology achieved 30, 32, 34, 38 points, respectively. Using the CMM the mean rotational freedom in BJ vs. CON was 0.32° ± 0.16° vs. 0.21° ± 0.25° (hand-tightened) and 0.36° ± 0.09° vs. 0.20° ± 0.22° (ratchet), respectively. The maximum vertical deviation of the abutment position after re-assembly was 7.2 μm ± 2.1 μm (BJ) and 24.4 μm ± 2.1 μm (CON).
conclusionThe data acquired suggest that the CMM with its non-contact, optical measurement method is the most appropriate to investigate the 3D positional stability of the IAC in different implant systems. As previously described distinct differences between BJ and CON IACs were found. CON connections exhibit a higher vertical deviation when the system specific torque value was applied.
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.