In Vitro Measurements of Precision of Fit of Implant‐Supported Frameworks. A Comparison between “Virtual” and “Physical” Assessments of Fit Using Two Different Techniques of Measurements
Identifieur interne : 002508 ( Istex/Corpus ); précédent : 002507; suivant : 002509In Vitro Measurements of Precision of Fit of Implant‐Supported Frameworks. A Comparison between “Virtual” and “Physical” Assessments of Fit Using Two Different Techniques of Measurements
Auteurs : Torsten Jemt ; Lars HjalmarssonSource :
- Clinical Implant Dentistry and Related Research [ 1523-0899 ] ; 2012-05.
English descriptors
- KwdEn :
- Absolute values, Canine mandible, Carl zeiss industrielle messtechnik gmbh, Center points, Clin, Clin implant dent relat, Clinical implant dentistry, Clinical studies, County council, Crestal bone changes, Dent, Dental prostheses, Different frameworks, Different techniques, Framework, Framework center points, Framework cylinders, Health service, Horizontal width, Implant, Implant bridge, Implant prosthodontics, Individual measurements, Jemt, Least square method, Master model, Maxillofac, Metal framework manufacturer, Models difference, Nobel biocare, Optical scanner measurements, Optical scanner techniques, Oral maxillofac implants, Oral rehabil, Partial dentures, Physical extensions, Prosthesis, Prosthet dent, Prosthodont, Pure titanium, Replica, Replica cylinders, Same time, Scanner, Scanning technique, Shortest distances, Software programs, Standard deviation, Techniques width, Terminal implants, Titanium, Titanium frameworks, Titanium implants, Torsten jemt, Virtual, Zeiss prismo.
- Teeft :
- Absolute values, Canine mandible, Carl zeiss industrielle messtechnik gmbh, Center points, Clin, Clin implant dent relat, Clinical implant dentistry, Clinical studies, County council, Crestal bone changes, Dent, Dental prostheses, Different frameworks, Different techniques, Framework, Framework center points, Framework cylinders, Health service, Horizontal width, Implant, Implant bridge, Implant prosthodontics, Individual measurements, Jemt, Least square method, Master model, Maxillofac, Metal framework manufacturer, Models difference, Nobel biocare, Optical scanner measurements, Optical scanner techniques, Oral maxillofac implants, Oral rehabil, Partial dentures, Physical extensions, Prosthesis, Prosthet dent, Prosthodont, Pure titanium, Replica, Replica cylinders, Same time, Scanner, Scanning technique, Shortest distances, Software programs, Standard deviation, Techniques width, Terminal implants, Titanium, Titanium frameworks, Titanium implants, Torsten jemt, Virtual, Zeiss prismo.
Abstract
Background: Comparisons between different techniques measuring fit of implant‐supported frameworks are few.
Url:
DOI: 10.1111/j.1708-8208.2011.00416.x
Links to Exploration step
ISTEX:4B6FFF6122930F663D097AF0E3DB837F609ED5CBLe document en format XML
<record><TEI wicri:istexFullTextTei="biblStruct"><teiHeader><fileDesc><titleStmt><title xml:lang="en">In Vitro Measurements of Precision of Fit of Implant‐Supported Frameworks. A Comparison between “Virtual” and “Physical” Assessments of Fit Using Two Different Techniques of Measurements</title><author><name sortKey="Jemt, Torsten" sort="Jemt, Torsten" uniqKey="Jemt T" first="Torsten" last="Jemt">Torsten Jemt</name><affiliation><mods:affiliation>Prosthodontist, The Brånemark Clinic, Public Dental Health Service, Göteborg, Sweden and professor, Department of Prosthetic Dentistry/Dental Material Science, Institute of Odontology, The Sahlgrenska Academy, Göteborg, Sweden</mods:affiliation></affiliation><affiliation><mods:affiliation>E-mail: torsten.jemt@vgregion.se</mods:affiliation></affiliation></author><author><name sortKey="Hjalmarsson, Lars" sort="Hjalmarsson, Lars" uniqKey="Hjalmarsson L" first="Lars" last="Hjalmarsson">Lars Hjalmarsson</name><affiliation><mods:affiliation>chairman, Specialist Prosthetic Clinic, Public Dental Health Service, The Mälar Hospital, Eskilstuna, Sweden</mods:affiliation></affiliation></author></titleStmt><publicationStmt><idno type="wicri:source">ISTEX</idno><idno type="RBID">ISTEX:4B6FFF6122930F663D097AF0E3DB837F609ED5CB</idno><date when="2012" year="2012">2012</date><idno type="doi">10.1111/j.1708-8208.2011.00416.x</idno><idno type="url">https://api.istex.fr/document/4B6FFF6122930F663D097AF0E3DB837F609ED5CB/fulltext/pdf</idno><idno type="wicri:Area/Istex/Corpus">002508</idno><idno type="wicri:explorRef" wicri:stream="Istex" wicri:step="Corpus" wicri:corpus="ISTEX">002508</idno></publicationStmt><sourceDesc><biblStruct><analytic><title level="a" type="main">In Vitro Measurements of Precision of Fit of Implant‐Supported Frameworks. A Comparison between “Virtual” and “Physical” Assessments of Fit Using Two Different Techniques of Measurements</title><author><name sortKey="Jemt, Torsten" sort="Jemt, Torsten" uniqKey="Jemt T" first="Torsten" last="Jemt">Torsten Jemt</name><affiliation><mods:affiliation>Prosthodontist, The Brånemark Clinic, Public Dental Health Service, Göteborg, Sweden and professor, Department of Prosthetic Dentistry/Dental Material Science, Institute of Odontology, The Sahlgrenska Academy, Göteborg, Sweden</mods:affiliation></affiliation><affiliation><mods:affiliation>E-mail: torsten.jemt@vgregion.se</mods:affiliation></affiliation></author><author><name sortKey="Hjalmarsson, Lars" sort="Hjalmarsson, Lars" uniqKey="Hjalmarsson L" first="Lars" last="Hjalmarsson">Lars Hjalmarsson</name><affiliation><mods:affiliation>chairman, Specialist Prosthetic Clinic, Public Dental Health Service, The Mälar Hospital, Eskilstuna, Sweden</mods:affiliation></affiliation></author></analytic><monogr></monogr><series><title level="j" type="main">Clinical Implant Dentistry and Related Research</title><title level="j" type="sub">Clinical Implant Dentistry and Related Research Prosthodontic Supplement 2012: Contemporary Insight Into Implant Prosthodontics</title><title level="j" type="alt">CLINICAL IMPLANT DENTISTRY RELATED RESEARCH</title><idno type="ISSN">1523-0899</idno><idno type="eISSN">1708-8208</idno><imprint><biblScope unit="vol">14</biblScope><biblScope unit="page" from="e175">e175</biblScope><biblScope unit="page" to="e182">e182</biblScope><biblScope unit="page-count">8</biblScope><publisher>Blackwell Publishing Ltd</publisher><pubPlace>Oxford, UK</pubPlace><date type="published" when="2012-05">2012-05</date></imprint><idno type="ISSN">1523-0899</idno></series></biblStruct></sourceDesc><seriesStmt><idno type="ISSN">1523-0899</idno></seriesStmt></fileDesc><profileDesc><textClass><keywords scheme="KwdEn" xml:lang="en"><term>Absolute values</term><term>Canine mandible</term><term>Carl zeiss industrielle messtechnik gmbh</term><term>Center points</term><term>Clin</term><term>Clin implant dent relat</term><term>Clinical implant dentistry</term><term>Clinical studies</term><term>County council</term><term>Crestal bone changes</term><term>Dent</term><term>Dental prostheses</term><term>Different frameworks</term><term>Different techniques</term><term>Framework</term><term>Framework center points</term><term>Framework cylinders</term><term>Health service</term><term>Horizontal width</term><term>Implant</term><term>Implant bridge</term><term>Implant prosthodontics</term><term>Individual measurements</term><term>Jemt</term><term>Least square method</term><term>Master model</term><term>Maxillofac</term><term>Metal framework manufacturer</term><term>Models difference</term><term>Nobel biocare</term><term>Optical scanner measurements</term><term>Optical scanner techniques</term><term>Oral maxillofac implants</term><term>Oral rehabil</term><term>Partial dentures</term><term>Physical extensions</term><term>Prosthesis</term><term>Prosthet dent</term><term>Prosthodont</term><term>Pure titanium</term><term>Replica</term><term>Replica cylinders</term><term>Same time</term><term>Scanner</term><term>Scanning technique</term><term>Shortest distances</term><term>Software programs</term><term>Standard deviation</term><term>Techniques width</term><term>Terminal implants</term><term>Titanium</term><term>Titanium frameworks</term><term>Titanium implants</term><term>Torsten jemt</term><term>Virtual</term><term>Zeiss prismo</term></keywords><keywords scheme="Teeft" xml:lang="en"><term>Absolute values</term><term>Canine mandible</term><term>Carl zeiss industrielle messtechnik gmbh</term><term>Center points</term><term>Clin</term><term>Clin implant dent relat</term><term>Clinical implant dentistry</term><term>Clinical studies</term><term>County council</term><term>Crestal bone changes</term><term>Dent</term><term>Dental prostheses</term><term>Different frameworks</term><term>Different techniques</term><term>Framework</term><term>Framework center points</term><term>Framework cylinders</term><term>Health service</term><term>Horizontal width</term><term>Implant</term><term>Implant bridge</term><term>Implant prosthodontics</term><term>Individual measurements</term><term>Jemt</term><term>Least square method</term><term>Master model</term><term>Maxillofac</term><term>Metal framework manufacturer</term><term>Models difference</term><term>Nobel biocare</term><term>Optical scanner measurements</term><term>Optical scanner techniques</term><term>Oral maxillofac implants</term><term>Oral rehabil</term><term>Partial dentures</term><term>Physical extensions</term><term>Prosthesis</term><term>Prosthet dent</term><term>Prosthodont</term><term>Pure titanium</term><term>Replica</term><term>Replica cylinders</term><term>Same time</term><term>Scanner</term><term>Scanning technique</term><term>Shortest distances</term><term>Software programs</term><term>Standard deviation</term><term>Techniques width</term><term>Terminal implants</term><term>Titanium</term><term>Titanium frameworks</term><term>Titanium implants</term><term>Torsten jemt</term><term>Virtual</term><term>Zeiss prismo</term></keywords></textClass></profileDesc></teiHeader><front><div type="abstract">Background: Comparisons between different techniques measuring fit of implant‐supported frameworks are few.</div></front></TEI><istex><corpusName>wiley</corpusName><keywords><teeft><json:string>implant</json:string><json:string>scanner</json:string><json:string>jemt</json:string><json:string>prosthesis</json:string><json:string>center points</json:string><json:string>clin</json:string><json:string>maxillofac</json:string><json:string>oral maxillofac implants</json:string><json:string>prosthodont</json:string><json:string>horizontal width</json:string><json:string>terminal implants</json:string><json:string>replica</json:string><json:string>clin implant dent relat</json:string><json:string>clinical implant dentistry</json:string><json:string>health service</json:string><json:string>different techniques</json:string><json:string>prosthet dent</json:string><json:string>scanning technique</json:string><json:string>framework</json:string><json:string>oral rehabil</json:string><json:string>same time</json:string><json:string>framework cylinders</json:string><json:string>optical scanner measurements</json:string><json:string>county council</json:string><json:string>physical extensions</json:string><json:string>master model</json:string><json:string>standard deviation</json:string><json:string>implant prosthodontics</json:string><json:string>titanium frameworks</json:string><json:string>framework center points</json:string><json:string>dent</json:string><json:string>titanium</json:string><json:string>virtual</json:string><json:string>individual measurements</json:string><json:string>optical scanner techniques</json:string><json:string>models difference</json:string><json:string>techniques width</json:string><json:string>pure titanium</json:string><json:string>zeiss prismo</json:string><json:string>least square method</json:string><json:string>absolute values</json:string><json:string>metal framework manufacturer</json:string><json:string>dental prostheses</json:string><json:string>carl zeiss industrielle messtechnik gmbh</json:string><json:string>partial dentures</json:string><json:string>different frameworks</json:string><json:string>torsten jemt</json:string><json:string>software programs</json:string><json:string>shortest distances</json:string><json:string>crestal bone changes</json:string><json:string>titanium implants</json:string><json:string>canine mandible</json:string><json:string>implant bridge</json:string><json:string>nobel biocare</json:string><json:string>clinical studies</json:string><json:string>replica cylinders</json:string></teeft></keywords><author><json:item><name>Torsten Jemt LDS, Odont Dr/PhD</name><affiliations><json:string>Prosthodontist, The Brånemark Clinic, Public Dental Health Service, Göteborg, Sweden and professor, Department of Prosthetic Dentistry/Dental Material Science, Institute of Odontology, The Sahlgrenska Academy, Göteborg, Sweden</json:string><json:string>E-mail: torsten.jemt@vgregion.se</json:string></affiliations></json:item><json:item><name>Lars Hjalmarsson LDS, Odont Dr/PhD</name><affiliations><json:string>chairman, Specialist Prosthetic Clinic, Public Dental Health Service, The Mälar Hospital, Eskilstuna, Sweden</json:string></affiliations></json:item></author><subject><json:item><lang><json:string>eng</json:string></lang><value>dental implants</value></json:item><json:item><lang><json:string>eng</json:string></lang><value>frameworks</value></json:item><json:item><lang><json:string>eng</json:string></lang><value>precision</value></json:item></subject><articleId><json:string>CID416</json:string></articleId><arkIstex>ark:/67375/WNG-GBGGCZ2Z-K</arkIstex><language><json:string>eng</json:string></language><originalGenre><json:string>article</json:string></originalGenre><abstract>Background: Comparisons between different techniques measuring fit of implant‐supported frameworks are few.</abstract><qualityIndicators><refBibsNative>true</refBibsNative><abstractWordCount>12</abstractWordCount><abstractCharCount>107</abstractCharCount><keywordCount>3</keywordCount><score>5.857</score><pdfWordCount>3713</pdfWordCount><pdfCharCount>25224</pdfCharCount><pdfVersion>1.3</pdfVersion><pdfPageCount>8</pdfPageCount><pdfPageSize>585 x 783 pts</pdfPageSize></qualityIndicators><title>In Vitro Measurements of Precision of Fit of Implant‐Supported Frameworks. A Comparison between “Virtual” and “Physical” Assessments of Fit Using Two Different Techniques of Measurements</title><pmid><json:string>22171700</json:string></pmid><genre><json:string>article</json:string></genre><host><title>Clinical Implant Dentistry and Related Research</title><language><json:string>unknown</json:string></language><doi><json:string>10.1111/(ISSN)1708-8208</json:string></doi><issn><json:string>1523-0899</json:string></issn><eissn><json:string>1708-8208</json:string></eissn><publisherId><json:string>CID</json:string></publisherId><volume>14</volume><pages><first>e175</first><last>e182</last><total>8</total></pages><genre><json:string>journal</json:string></genre></host><namedEntities><unitex><date><json:string>2012</json:string></date><geogName></geogName><orgName><json:string>Wiley Periodicals, Inc.</json:string><json:string>Clinical Research, Sörmland County Council, Eskilstuna, Sweden</json:string><json:string>Department of Prosthetic Dentistry/Dental Material Science, Institute of Odontology, The Sahlgrenska Academy, Göteborg, Sweden</json:string><json:string>Related Research, Volume</json:string><json:string>Mälar Hospital, Eskilstuna, Sweden Precision</json:string><json:string>GOM International</json:string><json:string>D Center</json:string></orgName><orgName_funder></orgName_funder><orgName_provider></orgName_provider><persName><json:string>Messtechnik</json:string><json:string>Torsten Jemt</json:string><json:string>Örtorp</json:string></persName><placeName><json:string>Switzerland</json:string><json:string>Germany</json:string><json:string>Implant Bridge</json:string><json:string>Sweden</json:string></placeName><ref_url></ref_url><ref_bibl></ref_bibl><bibl></bibl></unitex></namedEntities><ark><json:string>ark:/67375/WNG-GBGGCZ2Z-K</json:string></ark><categories><wos><json:string>1 - science</json:string><json:string>2 - dentistry, oral surgery & medicine</json:string></wos><scienceMetrix><json:string>1 - health sciences</json:string><json:string>2 - clinical medicine</json:string><json:string>3 - dentistry</json:string></scienceMetrix><scopus><json:string>1 - Health Sciences</json:string><json:string>2 - Dentistry</json:string><json:string>3 - General Dentistry</json:string><json:string>1 - Health Sciences</json:string><json:string>2 - Dentistry</json:string><json:string>3 - Oral Surgery</json:string></scopus></categories><publicationDate>2012</publicationDate><copyrightDate>2012</copyrightDate><doi><json:string>10.1111/j.1708-8208.2011.00416.x</json:string></doi><id>4B6FFF6122930F663D097AF0E3DB837F609ED5CB</id><score>1</score><fulltext><json:item><extension>pdf</extension><original>true</original><mimetype>application/pdf</mimetype><uri>https://api.istex.fr/document/4B6FFF6122930F663D097AF0E3DB837F609ED5CB/fulltext/pdf</uri></json:item><json:item><extension>zip</extension><original>false</original><mimetype>application/zip</mimetype><uri>https://api.istex.fr/document/4B6FFF6122930F663D097AF0E3DB837F609ED5CB/fulltext/zip</uri></json:item><istex:fulltextTEI uri="https://api.istex.fr/document/4B6FFF6122930F663D097AF0E3DB837F609ED5CB/fulltext/tei"><teiHeader><fileDesc><titleStmt><title level="a" type="main">In Vitro Measurements of Precision of Fit of Implant‐Supported Frameworks. A Comparison between “Virtual” and “Physical” Assessments of Fit Using Two Different Techniques of Measurements</title></titleStmt><publicationStmt><authority>ISTEX</authority><publisher>Blackwell Publishing Ltd</publisher><pubPlace>Oxford, UK</pubPlace><availability><licence>© 2011 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.</licence></availability><date type="published" when="2012-05"></date></publicationStmt><notesStmt><note type="content-type" subtype="article" source="article" scheme="https://content-type.data.istex.fr/ark:/67375/XTP-6N5SZHKN-D">article</note><note type="publication-type" subtype="journal" scheme="https://publication-type.data.istex.fr/ark:/67375/JMC-0GLKJH51-B">journal</note></notesStmt><sourceDesc><biblStruct type="article"><analytic><title level="a" type="main">In Vitro Measurements of Precision of Fit of Implant‐Supported Frameworks. A Comparison between “Virtual” and “Physical” Assessments of Fit Using Two Different Techniques of Measurements</title><title level="a" type="short">Precision of Fit of Implant‐Supported Frameworks</title><author xml:id="author-0000" role="corresp"><persName><forename type="first">Torsten</forename><surname>Jemt</surname><roleName type="degree">LDS, Odont Dr/PhD</roleName></persName><affiliation>Prosthodontist, The Brånemark Clinic, Public Dental Health Service, Göteborg, Sweden and professor, Department of Prosthetic Dentistry/Dental Material Science, Institute of Odontology, The Sahlgrenska Academy, Göteborg, Sweden<address><country key="SE"></country></address></affiliation><affiliation>Dr. Torsten Jemt, Brånemark Clinic, Public Dental Health Service, Medicinaregatan 12C, SE‐41390 Göteborg, Sweden; e‐mail: torsten.jemt@vgregion.se</affiliation></author><author xml:id="author-0001"><persName><forename type="first">Lars</forename><surname>Hjalmarsson</surname><roleName type="degree">LDS, Odont Dr/PhD</roleName></persName><affiliation>chairman, Specialist Prosthetic Clinic, Public Dental Health Service, The Mälar Hospital, Eskilstuna, Sweden<address><country key="SE"></country></address></affiliation></author><idno type="istex">4B6FFF6122930F663D097AF0E3DB837F609ED5CB</idno><idno type="ark">ark:/67375/WNG-GBGGCZ2Z-K</idno><idno type="DOI">10.1111/j.1708-8208.2011.00416.x</idno><idno type="unit">CID416</idno><idno type="toTypesetVersion">file:CID.CID416.pdf</idno></analytic><monogr><title level="j" type="main">Clinical Implant Dentistry and Related Research</title><title level="j" type="sub">Clinical Implant Dentistry and Related Research Prosthodontic Supplement 2012: Contemporary Insight Into Implant Prosthodontics</title><title level="j" type="alt">CLINICAL IMPLANT DENTISTRY RELATED RESEARCH</title><idno type="pISSN">1523-0899</idno><idno type="eISSN">1708-8208</idno><idno type="book-DOI">10.1111/(ISSN)1708-8208</idno><idno type="book-part-DOI">10.1111/cid.2012.14.issue-s1</idno><idno type="product">CID</idno><idno type="publisherDivision">ST</idno><imprint><biblScope unit="vol">14</biblScope><biblScope unit="page" from="e175">e175</biblScope><biblScope unit="page" to="e182">e182</biblScope><biblScope unit="page-count">8</biblScope><publisher>Blackwell Publishing Ltd</publisher><pubPlace>Oxford, UK</pubPlace><date type="published" when="2012-05"></date></imprint></monogr></biblStruct></sourceDesc></fileDesc><profileDesc><abstract xml:lang="en" style="main"><head>ABSTRACT</head><p><hi rend="bold">Background:</hi> Comparisons between different techniques measuring fit of implant‐supported frameworks are few.</p><p><hi rend="bold">Purpose:</hi> The purpose of this study was to compare data on precision of fit from two highly accurate measuring techniques and, also, to compare results using software programs for fit assessments considering both a “virtual” as well as a “physical” (i.e., more clinical) situation.</p><p><hi rend="bold">Materials and Methods:</hi> Five computer numerical control‐milled titanium frameworks (Procera® Implant Bridge, Nobel Biocare AB, Göteborg, Sweden) were fabricated from individual model/pattern measurements, simulating a clinical situation. Measurements of fit between frameworks and models were performed by means of a coordinate measuring machine (CMM; Zeiss Prismo Vast, Carl Zeiss Industrielle Messtechnik GmbH, Oberkochen, Germany) linked to a computer and an optical, high‐resolution, three‐dimensional scanner (Atos 4M SO, GOM International AG, Widen, Switzerland). Collected data on distortions between frameworks and models were analyzed and compared between the two measurement techniques. A comparison between “virtual” and “physical” fit assessments was also performed, based on data from the three‐dimensional scanner.</p><p><hi rend="bold">Results:</hi> When using “virtual” fit assessment programs, overall mean three‐dimensional distortion between implant and framework center points in absolute figures was 37 (SD 22) and 14 µm (SD 8) for the CMM and three‐dimensional scanning measurements, respectively. Corresponding mean three‐dimensional distortion when using a “physical” fit assessment program in the scanner was 43 µm (SD 24) (<hi rend="italic">p</hi> < 0.001). Mean horizontal (x‐axis) measurements of the distance between the two terminal implants of the models and the frameworks were 33.772 and 33.834 mm for the CMM technique. Corresponding measurements for the three‐dimensional scanner was 33.798 and 33.806 mm, respectively. Horizontal distances from the three‐dimensional scanner were, for most measurements, greater than for the CMM measurements.</p><p><hi rend="bold">Conclusion:</hi> Measurements of fit between frameworks and models may vary depending on what technique is used and how fit assessments regarding “virtual” or “physical” fit is approached.</p></abstract><textClass><keywords xml:lang="en"><term xml:id="k1">dental implants</term><term xml:id="k2">frameworks</term><term xml:id="k3">precision</term></keywords><keywords rend="tocHeading1"><term>Clinical Implant Dentistry and Related Research Prosthodontic Supplement 2012: Contemporary Insight Into Implant Prosthodontics</term></keywords></textClass><langUsage><language ident="en"></language></langUsage></profileDesc></teiHeader></istex:fulltextTEI><json:item><extension>txt</extension><original>false</original><mimetype>text/plain</mimetype><uri>https://api.istex.fr/document/4B6FFF6122930F663D097AF0E3DB837F609ED5CB/fulltext/txt</uri></json:item></fulltext><metadata><istex:metadataXml wicri:clean="Wiley, elements deleted: body"><istex:xmlDeclaration>version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8" standalone="yes"</istex:xmlDeclaration><istex:document><component version="2.0" type="serialArticle" xml:lang="en"><header><publicationMeta level="product"><publisherInfo><publisherName>Blackwell Publishing Ltd</publisherName><publisherLoc>Oxford, UK</publisherLoc></publisherInfo><doi origin="wiley" registered="yes">10.1111/(ISSN)1708-8208</doi><issn type="print">1523-0899</issn><issn type="electronic">1708-8208</issn><idGroup><id type="product" value="CID"></id><id type="publisherDivision" value="ST"></id></idGroup><titleGroup><title type="main" sort="CLINICAL IMPLANT DENTISTRY RELATED RESEARCH">Clinical Implant Dentistry and Related Research</title></titleGroup></publicationMeta><publicationMeta level="part" position="05001"><doi origin="wiley">10.1111/cid.2012.14.issue-s1</doi><titleGroup><title type="specialIssueTitle">Clinical Implant Dentistry and Related Research Prosthodontic Supplement 2012: Contemporary Insight Into Implant Prosthodontics</title></titleGroup><numberingGroup><numbering type="journalVolume" number="14">14</numbering><numbering type="supplement">s1</numbering></numberingGroup><coverDate startDate="2012-05">May 2012</coverDate></publicationMeta><publicationMeta level="unit" type="article" position="20" status="forIssue"><doi origin="wiley">10.1111/j.1708-8208.2011.00416.x</doi><idGroup><id type="unit" value="CID416"></id></idGroup><countGroup><count type="pageTotal" number="8"></count></countGroup><titleGroup><title type="tocHeading1">Clinical Implant Dentistry and Related Research Prosthodontic Supplement 2012: Contemporary Insight Into Implant Prosthodontics</title></titleGroup><copyright>© 2011 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.</copyright><eventGroup><event type="xmlConverted" agent="Converter:BPG_TO_WML3G version:3.1.6 mode:FullText" date="2012-08-21"></event><event type="publishedOnlineEarlyUnpaginated" date="2011-12-15"></event><event type="publishedOnlineFinalForm" date="2012-05-10"></event><event type="firstOnline" date="2011-12-15"></event><event type="xmlConverted" agent="Converter:WILEY_ML3G_TO_WILEY_ML3GV2 version:3.8.8" date="2014-01-15"></event><event type="xmlConverted" agent="Converter:WML3G_To_WML3G version:4.3.4 mode:FullText" date="2015-02-25"></event></eventGroup><numberingGroup><numbering type="pageFirst">e175</numbering><numbering type="pageLast">e182</numbering></numberingGroup><correspondenceTo>Dr. Torsten Jemt, Brånemark Clinic, Public Dental Health Service, Medicinaregatan 12C, SE‐41390 Göteborg, Sweden; e‐mail: <email>torsten.jemt@vgregion.se</email></correspondenceTo><linkGroup><link type="toTypesetVersion" href="file:CID.CID416.pdf"></link></linkGroup></publicationMeta><contentMeta><countGroup><count type="figureTotal" number="5"></count><count type="tableTotal" number="4"></count><count type="formulaTotal" number="0"></count><count type="referenceTotal" number="41"></count><count type="wordTotal" number="4347"></count><count type="linksPubMed" number="0"></count><count type="linksCrossRef" number="0"></count></countGroup><titleGroup><title type="main">In Vitro Measurements of Precision of Fit of Implant‐Supported Frameworks. A Comparison between “Virtual” and “Physical” Assessments of Fit Using Two Different Techniques of Measurements</title><title type="shortAuthors">Clinical Implant Dentistry and Related Research, Volume *, Number *, 2011</title><title type="short">Precision of Fit of Implant‐Supported Frameworks</title></titleGroup><creators><creator creatorRole="author" xml:id="cr1" affiliationRef="#a1" corresponding="yes"><personName><givenNames>Torsten</givenNames><familyName>Jemt</familyName><degrees>LDS, Odont Dr/PhD</degrees></personName></creator><creator creatorRole="author" xml:id="cr2" affiliationRef="#a2"><personName><givenNames>Lars</givenNames><familyName>Hjalmarsson</familyName><degrees>LDS, Odont Dr/PhD</degrees></personName></creator></creators><affiliationGroup><affiliation xml:id="a1" countryCode="SE"><unparsedAffiliation>Prosthodontist, The Brånemark Clinic, Public Dental Health Service, Göteborg, Sweden and professor, Department of Prosthetic Dentistry/Dental Material Science, Institute of Odontology, The Sahlgrenska Academy, Göteborg, Sweden</unparsedAffiliation></affiliation><affiliation xml:id="a2" countryCode="SE"><unparsedAffiliation>chairman, Specialist Prosthetic Clinic, Public Dental Health Service, The Mälar Hospital, Eskilstuna, Sweden</unparsedAffiliation></affiliation></affiliationGroup><keywordGroup xml:lang="en"><keyword xml:id="k1">dental implants</keyword><keyword xml:id="k2">frameworks</keyword><keyword xml:id="k3">precision</keyword></keywordGroup><abstractGroup><abstract type="main" xml:lang="en"><title type="main">ABSTRACT</title><p><b>Background:</b> Comparisons between different techniques measuring fit of implant‐supported frameworks are few.</p><p><b>Purpose:</b> The purpose of this study was to compare data on precision of fit from two highly accurate measuring techniques and, also, to compare results using software programs for fit assessments considering both a “virtual” as well as a “physical” (i.e., more clinical) situation.</p><p><b>Materials and Methods:</b> Five computer numerical control‐milled titanium frameworks (Procera® Implant Bridge, Nobel Biocare AB, Göteborg, Sweden) were fabricated from individual model/pattern measurements, simulating a clinical situation. Measurements of fit between frameworks and models were performed by means of a coordinate measuring machine (CMM; Zeiss Prismo Vast, Carl Zeiss Industrielle Messtechnik GmbH, Oberkochen, Germany) linked to a computer and an optical, high‐resolution, three‐dimensional scanner (Atos 4M SO, GOM International AG, Widen, Switzerland). Collected data on distortions between frameworks and models were analyzed and compared between the two measurement techniques. A comparison between “virtual” and “physical” fit assessments was also performed, based on data from the three‐dimensional scanner.</p><p><b>Results:</b> When using “virtual” fit assessment programs, overall mean three‐dimensional distortion between implant and framework center points in absolute figures was 37 (SD 22) and 14 µm (SD 8) for the CMM and three‐dimensional scanning measurements, respectively. Corresponding mean three‐dimensional distortion when using a “physical” fit assessment program in the scanner was 43 µm (SD 24) (<i>p</i> < 0.001). Mean horizontal (x‐axis) measurements of the distance between the two terminal implants of the models and the frameworks were 33.772 and 33.834 mm for the CMM technique. Corresponding measurements for the three‐dimensional scanner was 33.798 and 33.806 mm, respectively. Horizontal distances from the three‐dimensional scanner were, for most measurements, greater than for the CMM measurements.</p><p><b>Conclusion:</b> Measurements of fit between frameworks and models may vary depending on what technique is used and how fit assessments regarding “virtual” or “physical” fit is approached.</p></abstract></abstractGroup></contentMeta></header></component></istex:document></istex:metadataXml><mods version="3.6"><titleInfo lang="en"><title>In Vitro Measurements of Precision of Fit of Implant‐Supported Frameworks. A Comparison between “Virtual” and “Physical” Assessments of Fit Using Two Different Techniques of Measurements</title></titleInfo><titleInfo type="abbreviated" lang="en"><title>Precision of Fit of Implant‐Supported Frameworks</title></titleInfo><titleInfo type="alternative" contentType="CDATA" lang="en"><title>In Vitro Measurements of Precision of Fit of Implant‐Supported Frameworks. A Comparison between “Virtual” and “Physical” Assessments of Fit Using Two Different Techniques of Measurements</title></titleInfo><name type="personal"><namePart type="given">Torsten</namePart><namePart type="family">Jemt</namePart><namePart type="termsOfAddress">LDS, Odont Dr/PhD</namePart><affiliation>Prosthodontist, The Brånemark Clinic, Public Dental Health Service, Göteborg, Sweden and professor, Department of Prosthetic Dentistry/Dental Material Science, Institute of Odontology, The Sahlgrenska Academy, Göteborg, Sweden</affiliation><affiliation>E-mail: torsten.jemt@vgregion.se</affiliation><role><roleTerm type="text">author</roleTerm></role></name><name type="personal"><namePart type="given">Lars</namePart><namePart type="family">Hjalmarsson</namePart><namePart type="termsOfAddress">LDS, Odont Dr/PhD</namePart><affiliation>chairman, Specialist Prosthetic Clinic, Public Dental Health Service, The Mälar Hospital, Eskilstuna, Sweden</affiliation><role><roleTerm type="text">author</roleTerm></role></name><typeOfResource>text</typeOfResource><genre type="article" displayLabel="article" authority="ISTEX" authorityURI="https://content-type.data.istex.fr" valueURI="https://content-type.data.istex.fr/ark:/67375/XTP-6N5SZHKN-D">article</genre><originInfo><publisher>Blackwell Publishing Ltd</publisher><place><placeTerm type="text">Oxford, UK</placeTerm></place><dateIssued encoding="w3cdtf">2012-05</dateIssued><copyrightDate encoding="w3cdtf">2012</copyrightDate></originInfo><language><languageTerm type="code" authority="rfc3066">en</languageTerm><languageTerm type="code" authority="iso639-2b">eng</languageTerm></language><physicalDescription><extent unit="figures">5</extent><extent unit="tables">4</extent><extent unit="formulas">0</extent><extent unit="references">41</extent><extent unit="linksCrossRef">0</extent><extent unit="words">4347</extent></physicalDescription><abstract>Background: Comparisons between different techniques measuring fit of implant‐supported frameworks are few.</abstract><abstract>Purpose: The purpose of this study was to compare data on precision of fit from two highly accurate measuring techniques and, also, to compare results using software programs for fit assessments considering both a “virtual” as well as a “physical” (i.e., more clinical) situation.</abstract><abstract>Materials and Methods: Five computer numerical control‐milled titanium frameworks (Procera® Implant Bridge, Nobel Biocare AB, Göteborg, Sweden) were fabricated from individual model/pattern measurements, simulating a clinical situation. Measurements of fit between frameworks and models were performed by means of a coordinate measuring machine (CMM; Zeiss Prismo Vast, Carl Zeiss Industrielle Messtechnik GmbH, Oberkochen, Germany) linked to a computer and an optical, high‐resolution, three‐dimensional scanner (Atos 4M SO, GOM International AG, Widen, Switzerland). Collected data on distortions between frameworks and models were analyzed and compared between the two measurement techniques. A comparison between “virtual” and “physical” fit assessments was also performed, based on data from the three‐dimensional scanner.</abstract><abstract>Results: When using “virtual” fit assessment programs, overall mean three‐dimensional distortion between implant and framework center points in absolute figures was 37 (SD 22) and 14 µm (SD 8) for the CMM and three‐dimensional scanning measurements, respectively. Corresponding mean three‐dimensional distortion when using a “physical” fit assessment program in the scanner was 43 µm (SD 24) (p < 0.001). Mean horizontal (x‐axis) measurements of the distance between the two terminal implants of the models and the frameworks were 33.772 and 33.834 mm for the CMM technique. Corresponding measurements for the three‐dimensional scanner was 33.798 and 33.806 mm, respectively. Horizontal distances from the three‐dimensional scanner were, for most measurements, greater than for the CMM measurements.</abstract><abstract>Conclusion: Measurements of fit between frameworks and models may vary depending on what technique is used and how fit assessments regarding “virtual” or “physical” fit is approached.</abstract><subject lang="en"><genre>keywords</genre><topic>dental implants</topic><topic>frameworks</topic><topic>precision</topic></subject><relatedItem type="host"><titleInfo><title>Clinical Implant Dentistry and Related Research</title></titleInfo><genre type="journal" authority="ISTEX" authorityURI="https://publication-type.data.istex.fr" valueURI="https://publication-type.data.istex.fr/ark:/67375/JMC-0GLKJH51-B">journal</genre><identifier type="ISSN">1523-0899</identifier><identifier type="eISSN">1708-8208</identifier><identifier type="DOI">10.1111/(ISSN)1708-8208</identifier><identifier type="PublisherID">CID</identifier><part><date>2012</date><detail type="title"><title>Clinical Implant Dentistry and Related Research Prosthodontic Supplement 2012: Contemporary Insight Into Implant Prosthodontics</title></detail><detail type="volume"><caption>vol.</caption><number>14</number></detail><detail type="supplement"><caption>Suppl. no.</caption><number>s1</number></detail><extent unit="pages"><start>e175</start><end>e182</end><total>8</total></extent></part></relatedItem><identifier type="istex">4B6FFF6122930F663D097AF0E3DB837F609ED5CB</identifier><identifier type="ark">ark:/67375/WNG-GBGGCZ2Z-K</identifier><identifier type="DOI">10.1111/j.1708-8208.2011.00416.x</identifier><identifier type="ArticleID">CID416</identifier><accessCondition type="use and reproduction" contentType="copyright">© 2011 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.</accessCondition><recordInfo><recordContentSource authority="ISTEX" authorityURI="https://loaded-corpus.data.istex.fr" valueURI="https://loaded-corpus.data.istex.fr/ark:/67375/XBH-L0C46X92-X">wiley</recordContentSource><recordOrigin>Blackwell Publishing Ltd</recordOrigin></recordInfo></mods><json:item><extension>json</extension><original>false</original><mimetype>application/json</mimetype><uri>https://api.istex.fr/document/4B6FFF6122930F663D097AF0E3DB837F609ED5CB/metadata/json</uri></json:item></metadata><serie></serie></istex></record>Pour manipuler ce document sous Unix (Dilib)
EXPLOR_STEP=$WICRI_ROOT/Wicri/Santé/explor/EdenteV2/Data/Istex/Corpus
HfdSelect -h $EXPLOR_STEP/biblio.hfd -nk 002508 | SxmlIndent | more
Ou
HfdSelect -h $EXPLOR_AREA/Data/Istex/Corpus/biblio.hfd -nk 002508 | SxmlIndent | more
Pour mettre un lien sur cette page dans le réseau Wicri
{{Explor lien
|wiki= Wicri/Santé
|area= EdenteV2
|flux= Istex
|étape= Corpus
|type= RBID
|clé= ISTEX:4B6FFF6122930F663D097AF0E3DB837F609ED5CB
|texte= In Vitro Measurements of Precision of Fit of Implant‐Supported Frameworks. A Comparison between “Virtual” and “Physical” Assessments of Fit Using Two Different Techniques of Measurements
}}
| This area was generated with Dilib version V0.6.32. |  |