Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40481492›Full record

ArticleBMC oral health2025

Comparison Of Transfer Accuracy Among Hexed Implant Mounts, Clips Impression Copings, And Open-Tray Impression Copings at Different Implant Angulations: An In Vitro Study.

Merna M Seif, Ahmed A Abdel Hakim, Hassan M Abouelkheir, Rana A Negm

Abstract readComparative Study
In one paragraph

Article in BMC oral health, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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

4 authors.

Merna M SeifDepartment of Prosthodontics, Faculty of Dentistry, Alexandria University, Champollion St., Azarita, Alexandria, 21527, Egypt. merna.magdy.dent@alexu.edu.eg.
Ahmed A Abdel HakimDepartment of Prosthodontics, Faculty of Dentistry, Alexandria University, Champollion St., Azarita, Alexandria, 21527, Egypt.
Hassan M AbouelkheirDepartment of Oral Medicine, Periodontology, and Radiology, Faculty of Dentistry, Alexandria University, Alexandria, Egypt.
Rana A NegmDepartment of Prosthodontics, Faculty of Dentistry, Alexandria University, Champollion St., Azarita, Alexandria, 21527, Egypt.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundAccurate impression registration is essential for transferring the three-dimensional (3D) implant position to the definitive cast, ensuring passivity of the final prosthesis. Various impression techniques have been developed to optimize accuracy, particularly for angulated implants. This study aimed to evaluate and compare the accuracy of open-tray impression copings, clips impression copings, and hexed implant mounts in transferring implant positions for both straight and angulated implants.

methodsFive implants with different angulations (three at 0°, one at 15°, and one at 25°) were placed in an epoxy resin model, reflecting angulations commonly encountered in clinical practice. Thirty impressions were made using three types of impression copings: open-tray, clips (closed-tray), and hexed implant mounts (closed-tray), with ten impressions per group. Impressions were poured, and CBCT scans of the reference model and casts were obtained. The resulting DICOM files were converted to STL format using reverse engineering software to evaluate implant position accuracy based on shoulder deviation, apical deviation, angular deviation, and vertical shift. A significance level of p < 0.05 was set. One-way ANOVA and post hoc tests were performed; Tukey's HSD was applied when variance homogeneity was met, while the Games-Howell test was used when this assumption was violated.

resultsThe study revealed that among the three coping types, the hexed implant mount demonstrated significantly higher angular deviation (p < 0.001), apical deviation (p = 0.003), and vertical shift (p < 0.001) for 25° angulated implants compared to the open-tray and clips copings. There were no significant differences between the open-tray and clips groups at this angulation. At 15° angulation, the hexed implant mount showed a significantly greater vertical shift (p = 0.011) compared to the open-tray coping, while no significant difference was observed between the clips and open-tray copings. For straight implants (0° angulation), all three coping types-open-tray, clips, and hexed implant mounts-showed no significant differences in any measured parameter.

conclusionsOpen-tray and clips impression copings provide reliable implant position transfer for straight and angulated implants up to 25°. The hexed implant mount is accurate up to 15° angulation but shows increased deviations at 25°.

Indexed as

Dental ImplantsDental Impression TechniqueDental Prosthesis DesignCone-Beam Computed TomographyHumansIn Vitro TechniquesModels, DentalDental ImplantsClips impression copingDental implantsHexed implant mountImpression accuracyOpen-traySnap-on technique

Identifiers

PMID40481492
PMCPMC12142942

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.