ArticleBioinformation2025
Impact of abutment angulation on the accuracy of closed tray versus open tray implant impressions using noble bio-care active implants.
Article in Bioinformation, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The influence of abutment angulation on implant impression accuracy by comparing Closed Tray and Open Tray techniques in a clinical setting is of interest to dentists. Hence, a prospective cross-sectional analysis was conducted on 60 patients receiving implant-supported prostheses, stratified by abutment angulation (0°C, 15°Cand 30-45°C). Impressions were made using polyvinyl siloxane and accuracy was quantified via mean MM discrepancy and procedural performance scores. The Open Tray technique demonstrated superior dimensional fidelity (mean discrepancy = 0.46 mm) versus the Closed Tray (0.72 mm), with significantly higher rates of clinically acceptable impressions and procedural efficacy. Logistic regression identified procedural proficiency as a strong predictor of impression precision. These findings underscore the diagnostic superiority of the Open Tray technique, particularly in angulated scenarios, reinforcing its value in enhancing prosthetic accuracy and clinical predictability.
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.