Mostra el registre parcial de l'element
dc.contributor.author | Rech Ortega, Cristina | es |
dc.contributor.author | Fernández Estevan, Lucía | es |
dc.contributor.author | Solá Ruiz, María Fernanda | es |
dc.contributor.author | Agustín Panadero, Rubén | es |
dc.contributor.author | Labaig Rueda, Carlos | es |
dc.date.accessioned | 2019-03-07T13:18:57Z | |
dc.date.available | 2019-03-07T13:18:57Z | |
dc.date.issued | 2019 | es |
dc.identifier.citation | Rech Ortega, Cristina ; Fernández Estevan, Lucía ; Solá Ruiz, María Fernanda ; Agustín Panadero, Rubén ; Labaig Rueda, Carlos. Comparative in vitro study of the accuracy of impression techniques for dental implants : direct technique with an elastomeric impression material versus intraoral scanner. En: Medicina oral, patología oral y cirugía bucal. Ed. inglesa, 24 1 2019: 13- | es |
dc.identifier.uri | http://hdl.handle.net/10550/69451 | |
dc.description.abstract | The aim of this study was to compare a conventional technique (elastomeric impression material - EIM) and a digital technique (scanner digital model ? SDM) on a six-analog master model (MM) to determine which was the most exact. Twenty impressions were taken of a master model (EIM) and twenty scanned impressions (SDM) (True Definition). A coordinate measuring machine (CMM) was used to measure the distances between adjacent analogues (1-2, 2-3, 3-4, 4-5, 5-6), intermittently positioned analogues (1-4, 3-6) and the most distal (1-6). Reference values were established from the master model, which were compared with the two impression techniques. The significance level was established as 5% (p<0.05). The precision of each technique was compared with MM. For adjacent analogues (1-2), no significant differences were found between EIM-MM (p=0,146). For intermittently positioned analogues (1-4), SDM did not show significant differences with MM (p=0.255). For the distance between distal analogues (1-6), significant differences were found between both techniques and MM (p=0.001). In a clinical situation with < three implants, EIM is more exact than SDM, but in cases of four implants SDM is more exact. For rehabilitations (> four implants), neither technique can be considered accurate although error falls within the tolerance limits established in the literature (30-150µm). | es |
dc.title | Comparative in vitro study of the accuracy of impression techniques for dental implants : direct technique with an elastomeric impression material versus intraoral scanner | es |
dc.type | journal article | es_ES |
dc.subject.unesco | UNESCO::CIENCIAS MÉDICAS | es |
dc.identifier.doi | 10.4317/medoral.22822 | es |
dc.type.hasVersion | VoR | es_ES |